r& 


A 

MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

AND 

ORAL  DISCUSSION 


MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

AND 

ORAL  DISCUSSION 

FOR  SCHOOLS,  SOCIETIES 
AND  CLUBS 


BY 
JAMES  MILTON  O'NEILL 

Professor  of  Rhetoric  and  Oratory  in  the  University  of 

Wisconsin,  Co-author  of  Argumentation  and 

Debate,  Editor  of  The  Quarterly  Journal 

of  Speech  Education 


NEW  YORK 

THE  CENTURY  CO. 
1920 


Copyright,  1920,  by 
THE  CENTURY  Co. 


TO 

THE  MEMORY  OF 

GEORGE  RAY  WICKER 

A  TEACHER 

WHO  IN  SCHOOL  AND  COLLEGE 
ON  THE  STREET  AND  PLATFORM 
TAUGHT  MEN  TO  THINK 
AND  TO  EXPRESS  THEIR  THOUGHTS 


437 1  S3 


PREFACE 

The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  present  in  the 
briefest  and  simplest  manner  possible  the  neces- 
sary elementary  principles  which  are  observed  wher- 
ever orderly  public  discussion  takes  place,y-  whether 
in  a  formally  organized  debate  on  an'  unamend- 
able  proposition,  or  in  the  more  informal  discus- 
sion of  separate  propositions  related  to  a  general 
topic.  It  is  clear  that  in  both  situations  we  are 
dealing  with  oral  argumentation.  The  principles 
to  be  followed,  either  in  debate  or  discussion,  as 
these  terms  are  used  here,  are  necessarily  very 
similar.  Throughout  this  text,  however,  both  forms 
are  kept  in  mind,  and  here  and  there  special  adapta- 
tions to  one  or  the  other  are  definitely  discussed. 
..Probably  the  ideal  method  of  studying  in  this 
field,  of  preparing  one's  self  to  do  effective  oral 
argument,  is  to  pursue  a  regular  cqurse  of  class- 
room work.  This  book  is  prepared  principally  with 
this  situation  in  mind.  It  ought  to  be  possible,  in 
almost  any  school,  club,  or  society,  to  organize  such 
a  class,  to  meet,  if  more  frequent  meetings  are  im- 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

possible,  once  a  week  for  ten  weeks,  and  to  cover 
one  chapter  of  this  text  each  week.  Such  a  regular 
course  of  study,  with  the  working  out  of  some  of 
the  exercises  in  connection  with  the  different  chap- 
ters, ought  to  prepare  a  large  body  of  students  in 
any  institution,  not  only  for  intelligent  participa- 
tion in  the  debating  or  discussion  work  of  the  school, 
but  also  for  thinking  and  talking  in  other  courses 
and  in  all  the  affairs  of  life.  Of  course  if  more  time 
is  available,  shorter  lessons  may  be  assigned,  more 
exercises  may  be  worked  out,  and,  above  all  a 
great  many  oral  exercises,  oral  debates  and  discus- 
sions, may  be  indulged  in  frequently  by  the  class 
for  the  purpose  of  fuller  practice  in  the  principles 
here  set  forth. 

Where  regular  classroom  work  is  not  possible,  a 
great  deal  can  be  done,  as  always  has  been  done,  by 
a  series  of  contests  in  debate  or  discussion  carried 
on  between  the  teams  of  societies,  clubs,  or  schools. 
Since  in  many  institutions  the  only  opportunity  for 
practice  and  instruction  in  this  field  is  to  be  had 
outside  of  the  regular  classroom  work,  this  text 
has  been  prepared  with  the  needs  of  clubs  and  so- 
cieties also  in  mind,  and  an  attempt  has  been  made 
so  to  explain  and  illustrate  the  principles  here  dealt 
with  that  it  will  be  possible  for  the  careful  reader 
to  understand  them  easily  without  the  aid  of  a  spe- 
cial prepared  instructor  in  this  work.  A  series  of 


PREFACE  ix 

debates  or  discussion  contests  l  may  be  arranged  be- 
tween the  the  societies  of  a  given  school,  between 
classes  in  the  school,  or  between  schools.  Then 
each  person  participating  should  acquaint  himself 
with  the  elementary  principles  of  debate  and  discus- 
sion, and  should  be  assured  that  he  will  be  judged 
by  his  ability  to  practice  such  principles. 

This  text  is  offered  in  the  belief  that  it  presents, 
in  a  simple  form,  and  appropriately  adapted  to  the 
circumstances  of  school  and  contest  work,  the  great 
principles  of  intelligent  discussion  which  are  exem- 
plified in  all  the  best  work  of  this  nature  in  the 
actual  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  life  —  in  legisla- 
tion, in  law,  in  business,  in  science,  in  whatever  fields 
men  with  opinions  meet  to  argue  their  differences 
of  opinion.  Such  principles  are  not  new.  There 
is  considerable  in  this  book  that  has  been  said  be- 
fore; but  it  is  offered  nevertheless  as  a  text  that 
is  essentially  different  from  any  other  text  now 
available  for  the  particular  groups  for  which  this 
book  has  been  prepared.  And  it  is  offered  in  the 
belief  that  the  principal  differences  between  this 
text  and  others  are  due  to  the  aim  in  this  text  to 
make  school  debating  and  discussion  more  di- 
rectly identical  in  character  with  the  actual  debat- 
ing of  practical  life.  School  debating  should 
not  be,  and  need  not  be,  different  from  any  other 

1  See  Appendix. 


x  PREFACE 

debating  which  is  intelligently  carried  oti.  The 
fundamental  principles  governing  propositions, 
analysis,  evidence,  reasoning,  brief  drawing,  refuta- 
tion, etc.,  are  the  same  everywhere.  /  There  is,  then, 
in  this  book  no  attempt  whatever  to  lay  down  rules 
for  the  guidance  of  school  or  club  activities  in  this 
field  which  shall  not  apply  to  similar  activities  in 
college  or  university,  legislature,  courtroom,  or  busi- 
ness meeting.  The  attempt  has  been  simply  to  ex- 
pound and  illustrate  such  principles  in  a  sufficiently 
simple  and  non-technical  manner  to  make  the  treat- 
ment as  helpful  as  possible  to  beginners  in  this 
branch  of  study. 

This  text  is  not  a  simplification  of  Argumentation 
and  Debate,  by  O'Neill,  Laycock,  and  Scales  (Mac- 
millan,  1917).  That  book  was  prepared  as  a  prac- 
tically exhaustive  treatment  of  the  whole  field  indi- 
cated by  the  title,  for  both  oral  and  written  work. 
This  book  has,  as  has  been  explained,  a  much  nar- 
rower scope.  That  book  wras  prepared  for  use  as  a 
college  and  university  text  book.  This  is  for  an 
entirely  different  set  of  readers  —  students  in 
schools,  and  members  of  clubs  and  societies 
who  have  no  opportunities  for  regular  class  in- 
struction. The  general  theory  of  argumentation 
and  debate  presented  in  these  two  books  is  of  course 
the  same.  They  are  consistent  with  each  other  with- 
out being  duplicates.  Probably  teachers  of  this  text 


PREFACE  xi 

will  find  it  helpful  to  be  acquainted  with  the  treat- 
ment of  certain  problems  as  more  fully  presented 
in  that  larger  and  more  advanced  book. 

J.  M.  O'N. 
The  University  of  Wisconsin. 


CONTENTS 

I  INTRODUCTION 3 

II  PROPOSITIONS 15 

III  ANALYSIS 28 

IV  INVESTIGATION 49 

V  EVIDENCE 59 

VI    REASONING 84 

VII    REFUTATION 105 

VIII    ARRANGEMENT 117 

IX    COMPOSITION 143 

X    DELIVERY 157 

APPENDIX 

A    PARLIAMENTARY  MOTIONS 173 

B    A  STUDENT'S  BRIEF 176 

C    A  STUDENT'S  BRIEF,  OUTLINE,  AND  SPEECH  206 
D    MATERIAL  FOR  BRIEFING 

1.  Editorial 

Biennial  State  Elections       .     .      .231 

2.  Argumentative  Address 

The  Restoration  of  Our  Merchant 
Marine 233 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

3.  Student's  Argument 

The  Railways  After  the  War    .     .  245 

4.  Special  Article  (Refutation) 

Campaign  Against  Sweating     .      .  267 
E    DEBATING  LEAGUES 285 

F    INSTRUCTIONS  AND  BALLOT  FOR  A  JUDGE  OF 

A  DEBATE 289 

G     CRITICISM  BLANK  AND  BALLOT  FOR  JUDGE 

OF  A  DEBATE 290 

H    DISCUSSION  CONTESTS 292 

I    INSTRUCTIONS  AND  BALLOT  FOR  JUDGE  OF  A 

DISCUSSION  CONTEST 296 

INDEX 299 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  AMD 
ORAL  DISCUSSION 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  AND 
ORAL  DISCUSSION 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

A.  Definitions. 

B.  Class  and  contest  work. 

C.  Function  of  contests. 

D.  Decisions. 

1.  Legislator's  vote. 

2.  Juryman's  vote. 
4.  Critic's  vote. 

E.  Choosing  judges. 

F.  Single  expert  judge. 

A.  Definitions.  At  the  outset,  let  us  have  clearly 
in  mind  the  meaning  of  the  terms  used  in  our  title, 
and  the  purposes  for  which  this  book  should  be 
studied.  By  debate  and  oral  discussion  we  mea^i 
certain  specialized  forms  of  argumentation.  Argu- 
mentation is  the  art  of  influencing  others,  through 
the  medium  of  reasoned  discourse,  to  believe  or  to 
act  as  we  wish  them  to  believe  or  act.  It  is,  in 
short,  the  art  of  getting  other  people  to  agree  with 
us,  or  to  do  what  we  want  them  to  do.  By  debate ! 
is  meant  a  direct  oral  contest  on  a  given  proposi- 

3 


;.:4/:  l':-';'-^  ^'NUAL  OF  DEBATE 

tion  between  two  opposing  sides  at  a  given  time 
and  place./  Such  a  contest  may  be  an  actual  debate 
in  real  life  in  which  some  problem  is  being  fought 
out,  as  in  legislature  or  courtroom  or  business  meet- 
ing; or  it  may  be  a  contest  debate  carried  on  as  a 
practice  exercise  or  as  a  sport  or  game  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  training  in  this  field.  If  it  is 
the  latter,  the  proposition  is  usually  an  unamend- 
able  proposition,  so  that  affirmative  and  negative 
have  to  stand  for  the  affirmative  and  negative  of 
the  proposition  precisely  as  worded,  without  any 
opportunity  to  amend  it  or  change  it  to  suit  their 
varying  opinions.  By  an  oral  discussion,  or  ex- 
temporaneous speaking  contest,  is  meant  a  more  gen- 
eral, less  formal,  less  rigidly  organized,  argumen- 
tative contest  or  program  on  some  proposition  which 
may  be  amended  or  altered  to  suit  the  opinions  of 
various  people  participating.  Or  it  may  mean  a 
series  or  group  of  more  or  less  independent  argu- 
ments on  separate  propositions,  all  of  which,  how- 
ever, relate  to  the  same  general  topic.  For  instance, 
there  might  be  a  general  oral  discussion  of  the  topic 
"Labor  in  War-time."  Ten  different  speakers 
might  appear,  each  giving  an  argumentative  speech, 
some  directly  debating  with  others,  but  each  choos- 
ing his  own  proposition  in  this  field,  or  choosing 
to  oppose  the  propositions  of  any  of  the  other 
speakers. 

B.  Class  and  contest  work.     Probably  the  best 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  5 

method  of  gaining  the  right  start  toward  profi- 
ciency in  the  activities  just  defined,  is  to  follow 
a  regularly  organized  course  of  class  room  study. 
Such  a  course  should  include  gaining  an  under- 
standing of  the  whole  of  this  text,  the  working  out 
of  most  of  the  exercises  given  at  the  end  of  differ- 
ent chapters,  and  participation  in  as  many  oral  exer- 
cises, debates,  and  discussions  as  possible  in  the 
time  available.  But  where  such  regular  class  work 
is  impossible,  a  great  deal  can  be  gained  by  partici- 
pation in  contest  debates  or  discussion  contests  be- 
tween societies,  clubs,  classes,  or  schools.  If  such 
contests  are  properly  conducted,  they  can  be  of  great 
educational  advantage.  If  improperly  conducted, 
they  can  very  easily  do  more  harm  than  good.  We 
should  understand  their  proper  function  and  should 
so  conduct  these  activities  that  we  may  get  their 
full  benefits  and  avoid  possible  evil  effects. 

C.  The  function  of  contests  is  apparently  often 
misunderstood.  Formal  contests  should  be  car- 
ried on,  broadly,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  such 
training  as  will  make  those  who  partake  better 
able  to  indulge  in  the  discussion  and  debate  which  is 
to-day  so  generally  necessary  for  the  proper  conduct 
of  our  affairs  in  actual  life.  They  should  also  set 
before  those  who  hear  them  good  examples  of  pub- 
lic discussion.  Both  for  those  who  participate  and 
those  who  listen,  contests  in  debate  and  discussion 
should  be  helpful  toward  higher  standards,  better 


6  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ideals,  greater  ability  in  this  field.  This  broad  ul- 
timate purpose  of  all  these  contests  should  never 
be  lost  sight  of.  Their  function  is  properly  edu- 
cational, and  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  di- 
verted from  their  really  great  educational  end. 
When  we  neglect  their  possibilities  as  educational 
agencies  and  prostitute  them  to  mere  advertising 
and  cheap  "  sporting  "  ends,  we  are  committing  an 
offense  as  great  as  any  of  the  outrages  that  char- 
acterized the  worst  days  of  athletic  rivalry.  Now 
it  is  only  by  making  them  approximate  as  closely 
as  possible  in  character  and  conduct,  the  best  debates 
and  discussions  of  actual  life  that  we  can  hold  them 
true  to  this  educational  purpose.  This  ultimate 
educational  aim  of  the  whole  activity  can  best  be 
served,  of  course,  by  recognizing  and  acting  upon 
the  truth  at  every  phase  of  study  and  activity.  We 
should  therefore  recognize  that  the  immediate  pur- 
pose of  the  contestants  in  any  particular  contest 
debate  or  discussion  is,  and  must  be,  to  do  better 
work  than  their  opponents,  to  demonstrate  their 
superiority  in  this  field  over  those  against  whom 
they  are  contending.  Any  statement  that  their  pur- 
pose on  the  platform  is  to  find  the  truth  or  to  con- 
vert their  hearers  to  the  truth,  is  obviously  incor- 
rect. The  members  of  a  debating  team  in  a  con- 
test debate  and  the  speakers  in  a  discussion  contest 
take  the  platform  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
they  are  better  workmen  than  their  opponents.  If 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  7 

their  standards  are  what  they  should  be,  this  is  an 
entirely  laudable  purpose  —  one  that  should  be 
frankly  admitted  and  not  hypocritically  mislabelled 
or  denied.  This  purpose  is  precisely  parallel  to 
that  of  contestants  in  any  other  similar  contest  in 
story  writing,  poetry,  cabinet  making,  pottery, 
music,  chess,  football,  or  marksmanship.  To  do 
the  work  you  are  engaged  in  to  the  best  of  your 
ability,  to  surpass  all  rivals  in  your  art  according 
to  the  highest  standards  and  the  best  ideal  of  that 
art,  is  a  very  worthy  object  in  any  contest  —  and 
one  that  should  be  frankly  avowed.  This  does  not 
mean  an  artificial  display  of  personal  qualities,  but 
if  the  contest  be  intelligently  judged,  it  means  the 
very  opposite.  It  means  a  submerging  of  the 
speaker  in  the  speech,  the  subservience  of  the  mes- 
senger to  the  message.  It  means  decisions  based  on 
how  well  the  speaker  does  his  work  —  not  on  the 
judge's  opinion  of  the  speaker's  purpose,  decisions 
based  on  how  well  the  speaker  serves  his  message 
—  not  on  how  much  the  judge  likes  the  content  of 
the  message.  It  means  that  the  contest  will  be 
decided  upon  the  basis  of  the  better  work,  and  that 
the  standards  applied  shall  be  the  correct  standards 
by  which  all  good  and  effective  debating  and  discus- 
sion is  guided  everywhere. 

D.  The  decisions  to  be  rendered,  then,  in  contest 
debate  or  discussion  are  of  great  importance.  Cor- 
rect decisions  will  enable  this  work  to  serve  a  really 


8  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

significant  educational  end.  Incorrect  decisions,  de- 
cisions rendered  upon  improper  grounds,  may  so 
pervert  the  whole  activity  that  the  total  result  will 
be  more  harm  than  good.  There  are  three  possible 
types  of  decision  which  may  conceivably  be  rendered 
at  the  close  of  a  contest  debate,  and  substantially  the 
same  three  would  apply  to  a  discussion  contest. 

i.  The  legislator's  rote  is  a  vote  in  which  the 
voter  expresses  his  opinion  of  the  proposition. 
When  the  time  comes  to  vote,  he  votes  as  he  believes 
on  the  question  to  be  decided,  regardless  of  what 
anyone  has  said  or  left  unsaid.  In  a  discussion 
contest  he  would  vote  for  the  speaker  whose  topic, 
point  of  view,  or  opinion  concerning  the  subject  of 
discussion,  he  liked  best  —  which  speaker  he  most 
closely  agreed  with.  He  is  not  limited  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  evidence  presented  in  the  debate 
or  discussion  just  closed.  'He  may  properly  call 
to  mind  all  that  he  has  ever  known  about  the  ques- 
tion under  discussion, —  his  own  personal  experi- 
ence, his  own  political  philosophy,  the  interests  of 
his  constituents  or  his  state,  or  his  party, —  and  all 
things  considered,  he  votes  as  he  believes  on  the 
merits  of  the  question  before  him.  Such  a  decision 
is  obviously  improper  at  the  close  of  a  contest  de- 
bate or  discussion,  because  it  can  have  no  necessary 
vital  connection  with  what  the  contestants  have 
been  saying  or  doing.  It  is  absurd  to  believe  that 
contest  debaters  can  overturn  the  opinions  of  ma- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  9 

ture  judges  on  the  questions  debated  in  the  few 
minutes  at  their  disposal.  They  may  weaken  or 
strengthen  the  judges'  original  opinion,  or  may 
leave  it  quite  untouched.  But  unless  we  can  as- 
sume that  the  debaters  can  really  completely  re- 
verse the  private  opinions  of  the  judges  on  the 
question  involved,  which  is  patently  absurd,  we 
gain  nothing  out  of  this  decision  which  we  would 
not  get  if  we  received  these  opinions  of  the  judges 
by  mail  weeks  before  the  debate.  So  the  legisla- 
tor's vote  is  totally  unfit  for  our  purpose  here. 

2.  The  juryman's  vote  1  is  a  decision  based  upon 
the  evidence  duly  admitted  by  the  court  in  a  given 
trial.  Here  the  juryman  is  under  oath  to  lay  aside 
his  private  opinion,  to  disregard  everything  that 
he  may  know  or  believe  which  would  have  any 
bearing  on  the  question  except  that  which  has  been 
legally  admitted  for  his  consideration  in  this  par- 
ticular trial.  Considering,  then,  only  the  evidence 
which  has  been  here  put  before  him,  he  votes  on 
what  he  believes  to  be  the  strength  of  that  evidence. 
His  vote  does  not  say,  as  would  the  legislator's,  that 
he  believes,  all  things  considered,  that  A  is  guilty 
of  a  crime,  or  that  A  ought  to  pay  B  a  thousand  dol- 
lars, but  he  says  essentially  that  the  evidence  here 
presented  to  prove  that  A  is  guilty  is  stronger  than 
that  presented  on  the  other  side.  In  the  discussion 

1  See   "The   Juryman's   Vote    in    Debate,"    The   Quarterly 
Journal  of  Speech  Education,  October,  1917,  p.  346. 


io  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

contest  this  vote  would  be  the  same  as  in  debate 
—  the  judge  would  vote  for  the  speaker  who  in 
his  opinion  offered  the  strongest  evidence  with- 
out regard  to  any  other  consideration.  The  jury- 
man's vote  simply  weighs  evidence  and  disregards 
everything  else.  It  recognizes  the  presumption  of 
the  innocence  of  the  defense, —  the  negative, —  puts 
a  complete  burden  of  proof  on  the  affirmative,  and 
votes  for  the  negative  unless  the  affirmative  has 
completely  sustained  that  burden  of  proof. 

Such  a  decision  is  totally  out  of  place  in  contest 
debating,  for  two  principal  reasons:  First,  the 
conditions  governing  contest  debate, —  time,  allow- 
ance, the  nature  of  the  questions,  etc., —  make  it, 
as  a  rule,  impossible  for  the  affirmative  actually  to 
prove  by  evidence  that  they  are  right  and  the  nega- 
tive wrong.  In  other  words,  such  a  consideration 
of  burden  of  proof  would  mean,  in  practically  all 
contests,  that  a  juryman's  vote  would  necessarily 
have  to  be  given  to  the  negative.  The  affirmative 
simply  could  not  prove  its  case  in  this  strict  court- 
room sense  of  the  term.  In  the  second  place,  a  de- 
cision so  rendered  is  necessarily  based  simply  upon 
evidence.  The  side  which  presents  the  stronger 
evidence  wins,  regardless  of  how  the  evidence  is 
presented,  regardless  of  where  the  evidence  was  ob- 
tained, regardless  of  the  ease  with  which  the  evi- 
dence was  obtained.  The  team  which  can  present 
the  stronger  evidence  in  this  way  would  very  often 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  n 

be  simply  the  lucky  team,  the  team  which  happened 
to  get  the  side  on  which  the  stronger  evidence  was 
available.  It  is  a  decision  strictly  upon  one  ele- 
ment and  only  one  element  of  what  constitutes 
good  debating.  Everything  but  evidence  being  dis- 
regarded, all  educational  influence  is  taken  away 
from  the  decision,  and  therefore  from  the  contest. 
The  judges  say  which  side  presented  the  stronger 
evidence,  and  the  opinion  of  a  group  of  three  men 
as  to  the  strength  of  evidence  on  one  side  or  the 
other  of  a  debatable  proposition  has  no  possible 
educational  significance  to  the  contestants  concerned, 
nor  to  anybody  else.  Such  decisions  cannot  pos- 
sibly promote  better  debating  because  they  totally 
disregard  all  elements  of  good  debating  save  one, — 
that  is  the  presentation  of  strong  evidence. 

3.  The  critic's  vote  is  a  vote  given  by  a  critic  of 
debate  or  discussion  who  is  present  frankly  in  the 
capacity  of  critic,  and  who  says  at  the  end  of  the 
debate  which  team  is  made  up  of  better  debaters, 
or  which  team  has  done  the  better  debating.  In  a 
discussion  contest  the  critic  would  say  which  speaker 
had  given  the  best  discussion,  considering  every- 
thing that  goes  to  make  good  oral  public  discussion. 
This  is  the  only  proper  type  of  decision  for  con- 
test debate  or  discussion.  It  takes  into  considera- 
tion all  that  goes  to  make  intelligent  debate  or  dis- 
cussion. If  this  method  is  carefully  practiced  year 
after  year,  the  record  of  such  decisions  can  have 


12  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

great  educational  influence.  Contestants  will  learn 
what  constitutes  good  debating,  or  discussion,  and 
will  learn  that  nothing  else  can  win.  All  that  is 
cheap,  tricky,  superficial,  and  unworthy  can  be  pen- 
alized and  discouraged,  and  so  suppressed  and 
eliminated.  Solid,  thorough,  intelligent,  direct,  sim- 
ple discussion  can  be  rewarded  and  encouraged. 
All  judges  should  be  instructed  to  render  this  type 
of  decision,  and  judges  should  be  chosen  solely 
upon  their  ability  so  to  decide.  Critics  should  be 
chosen  whose  opinion  in  regard  to  the  excellence 
of  debating  or  discussion  is  of  real  significance  to 
the  debaters  and  to  all  others  interested. 

E.  The  choosing  of  judges,  then,  becomes  frankly 
an  exceedingly  important  thing  in  contest  debate 
and  discussion.  It  should  be  done  with  great  care. 
Of  course  what  is  meant  here  is  not  the  old  jockey- 
ing for  judges,  the  choosing  of  judges  on  the  basis 
of  political  and  social  and  religious  prejudice,  or  in- 
terest in  one  school  or  one  state.  The  careful  selec- 
tion of  competent  critics  in  this  field  is  meant.  We 
should  select  competent  critics  in  this  field  precisely 
as  competent  critics  in  architecture,  music,  road- 
building,  or  story  writing  would  be  selected  to  judge 
contests  in  their  respective  fields.  The  one  thing 
to  know  about  a  judge  of  a  contest  debate  ought  to 
be,  Is  he  a  competent  critic  of  debating?  Does  he 
really  know  what  constitutes  excellence  in  all  de- 
partments of  debate,  and  can  he  tell  accurately 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  13 

which  of  two  groups,  each  of  which  is  doing  good 
work,  is  actually  the  superior  group?  Only  such 
critics  should  be  selected  as  judges,  and  they  should 
always  be  instructed  to  render  strictly  a  critic's 
vote.1  The  availability  of  judges  of  this  sort  is 
sometimes  doubted.  Yet  it  seems  there  must  be  in 
this  country  only  a  very  few  communities  in  which 
a  number  of  men  or  women  could  not  easily  be  ob- 
tained who  know  enough  about  oral  argument  to 
be  able  to  give  such  an  expert  opinion  on  the  quality 
of  work  done  in  any  contest  in  oral  debate  or  dis- 
cussion. Teachers  of  debating,  former  contest  de- 
baters, lawyers,  teachers,  and  public  men  are,  most 
of  them,  more  or  less  competent;  and  in  any  com- 
munity a  number  ought  to  be  found  who  are  very 
competent  indeed.  A  big  advance  will  be  made, 
anyway,  if  everywhere  such  judges  as  are  avail- 
able are  chosen  strictly  on  this  basis,  are  instructed 
to  give  simply  a  critic's  vote,  and  are  required  to 
give  reasons  for  their  decisions  and  to  sign  their > 
ballots. 

F.  A  single  expert  judge  is  often  used,  and  the 
reasons  for  such  use  are  very  good.  In  the  first 
place,  if  a  debate  is  accurately  judged,  competent 
critics  will  usually  substantially  agree.  It  has  been 
observed  that  the  increase  of  unanimous  decisions 
in  contest  debates  judged  by  experts  in  debate  seems 
to  be  increasing  of  late  years.  One  competent  ex- 

1  Sec  ballot  and  judges'  instructions,  Appendixes  F,  G  and  I. 


H  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

pert  to  decide  the  debate  and  explain  the  basis  of 
his  decision  to  both  teams,  and  even  perhaps  to  the 
audience,  can  render  tremendous  service  to  the  cause 
of  good  debating  everywhere.1  Such  a  system 
makes  it  easier  to  have  expert  critics  because  prob- 
ably one  such  person  can  always  be  found,  and  it 
saves  the  expense  of  having  three  or  five  judges. 
It  is  very  much  better  to  pay  even  $30  expenses 
to  bring  an  expert  judge  from  a  distance  than  it 
is  $10  apiece  to  bring  from  a  shorter  distance  three 
distinguished  citizens,  whose  decision,  when  all  is 
said  and  done,  is  of  very  little  educational  signifi- 
cance. Competent  critics  should  always  be  chosen, 
three  or  five  if  they  are  easily  available  and  the  cost 
is  not  prohibitive,  and  one  alone  if  considerations 
of  expense  make  a  larger  number  impossible. 

!See,  "The  Expert  Judge  of  Debate,"  by  L.  R.  Sarrett, 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Speech  Education,  Vol.  Ill,  No.  2,  p. 
US- 


CHAPTER  II 

PROPOSITIONS 

A.  Propositions  necessary  for  argument. 

B.  In  various  situations. 

C.  The  kinds  of  propositions  for  the  purposes  of  debate. 

D.  The  phrasing  of  the  proposition. 

E.  The  characteristics  of  a  good  proposition  for  debate. 

1.  Assertion. 

2.  Single. 

3.  Unambiguous. 

4.  Unprejudiced. 

5.  As  concrete  and  specific  as  possible. 

6.  Burden  of  proof  on  the  affirmative. 

7.  As  brief  and  simple  as  possible. 

8.  Debatable. 

9.  Interesting. 

A.  Propositions  necessary  for  argument.  Both 
in  formal  debate  or  in  informal  discussion  we  must 
have  a  proposition.  /A  proposition  is  a  complete 
statement  that  something  is  or  is  not  true,  or  should 
or  should  not  be  done,  as  "  The  Federal  Govern- 
ment Should  Own  and  Operate  Telephones  and  Tele- 
graphs," or  "  John  Jones  is  Guilty  of  Murder  in/-' 
the  First  Degree." /In  a  general  discussion  the 
proposition  for  a  certain  time  may  well  be  a  sub- 
proposition  —  to  amend,  or  to  postpone,  or  to  send 
to  a  committee, —  but  some  proposition  there  must 
be,  either  expressed  or  simply  held  in  the  mind  of 

15 


16  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  speaker,  before  we  can  have  intelligent  argu- 
ment. We  cannot  have  an  argument  the  basis  of 
which  is  simply  a  term.  A  term  is  a  name,  as 
"Federal  Ownership,"  "The  Mexican  Problem," 
"  The  Negro  Question."  A  term  does  not  express 
a  complete  opinion;  it  does  not  make  a  complete 
statement  which  one  can  accept  or  deny.  While  it 
is  possible  to  write  a  description,  a  narration,  or 
an  exposition,  the  subject  of  which  is  simply  a  term, 
we  cannot  have  an  argument  or  a  debate  or  any 
orderly  discussion  which  deals  with  a  difference  of 
opinion  until  a  complete  statement  has  been  made 
stating  a  position  which  may  be  accepted  or  re- 
jected, as  "  All  coal  mines  in  the  United  States 
should  be  owned  and  operated  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment." When  a  complete  statement  of  a  propo- 
sition is  formally  phrased  as  the  subject  of  a  de- 
bate, it  is  usually  introduced  by  the  words,  "  Re- 
solved :  that " ;  so  a  proper  subject  for  an  argu- 
ment of  any  kind  should  always  be  written  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Resolved :  that  all  coal  mines  in  the  United 
States  should  be  owned  and  operated  by  the  Fed- 
eral Government." 

B.  In  various  situations.  It  is  necessary  to  have 
a  proposition,  in  some  form  or  other,  expressed  or 
unexpressed,  in  all  sorts  of  situations  in  which  ar- 
gumentation is  indulged  in.  In  the  courtroom  the 
proposition  is  carefully  stated  in  the  pleadings;  in 
a  legislature,  directors'  meeting,  or  other  delibera- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  17 

live  assembly,  it  is  usually  given  in  some  motion  or 
resolution;  and  in  an  argumentative  speech,  even 
though  an  opponent  is  not  present  to  represent  the 
other  side,  the  proposition  must  be  phrased  just  the 
same.  The  speaker  or  writer  must  have  his  own 
proposition,  even  though  he  does  not  state  it  in 
full  to  his  audience  in  the  beginning,  or  use  it  as 
the  title  of  his  speech  or  book  or  article.  It  may 
or  may  not  be  fully  expressed  at  the  start,  depend- 
ing upon  whether  or  not  the  arguer  thinks  it  wise 
to  state  his  position  in  full  at  the  very  outset  of  his 
discussion.  Sometimes  it  is  well  to  lead  up  to  the 
proposition  gradually  and  give  it  in  full  to  audience 
or  readers  after  they  have  been  prepared  for  it. 
Certainly,  however,  before  one  can  write  or  speak 
an  intelligent  argument,  he  must  know  himself  pre- 
cisely the  proposition  for  which  he  is  contending. 
The  benefits  to  the  reader  or  hearer  of  exact  knowl- 
edge of  the  precise  position  held  by  the  arguer  are 
so  many  and  so  obvious  that  the  proposition  should 
always  be  stated  unless  there  is  a  definite  and  ade- 
quate reason  for  holding  it  back  until  the  audience 
or  readers  have  been  prepared  for  it. 

C.  The  kinds  of  propositions  for  the  purposes 
of  debate  are:  propositions  of  fact,  and  propositions 
of  policy.  A  proposition  of  fact  is  one  which  aims 
at  simple  belief  or  acceptance  on  the  part  of  the 
audience,  as  "  Resolved :  that  Mars  is  Inhabited,"  or, 
"  Resolved :  that  the  Coal  in  the  State  of  Illinois  will 


1 8  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

be  Exhausted  in  Twenty  Years."     Propositions  of 
policy  aim  at  definite  action  —  they  deal  with  plans 
for  having  something  done,  as  "  Resolved :  that  the 
Federal  Government  Should  Own  and  Operate  all 
Coal  Mines,"  or,  "  Resolved :  that  the  Town  of  '  X  ' 
Should  build  a  New  High  School,"  or,  "  Resolved : 
that   Fraternities    Should  be   Abolished    from   the 
Public  High  Schools   in  the   State  of  '  Y.'"     A 
proposition  of  fact  raises  the  question :     "  Is  this 
true?  "     A  proposition  of  policy  raises  the  question : 
"Ought  this  to  be  done?"     For  the  purposes  of 
practice  in  debating,  and  for  contest  debates,  propo- 
sitions of  policy  are  usually  better  because  they  are 
usually  more  interesting  and  offer  a   wider  type 
of  appeal.     Some  questions  of  fact,  however,  may 
also   serve   as   excellent   propositions    for   practice 
and  contest  debating,  such  as,  questions  in  history, 
and  science  concerning  disputed  matters,  or  other 
propositions  dealing  with  important  and  unsettled 
matters  of   fact.     In  connection  with  this  classi- 
fication it  should  always  be  remembered  that  many 
simple  propositions   of    fact   are   really   not   good 
propositions    for   debate,   but   are   rather  proposi- 
tions for  investigation.     Do  not  attempt  to  settle 
by   discussion   simple  propositions   of    fact   which 
ought  to  be  settled  by  investigation,  questions  con- 
cerning which  intelligent  men  cannot  very  well  hon- 
estly differ  after  the  evidence  has  been  submitted. 
For  instance,  do  not  debate  how  many  acres  the 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  19 

school  grounds  contain;  measure  the  grounds.  Do 
not  debate  whether  or  not  the  price  of  coal  is  higher 
in  Indiana  than  it  is  in  Pennsylvania;  refer  to 
authentic  reports  and  settle  the  question  that  way. 

D.  The  phrasing  of  the  proposition  is  not  always 
an  easy  task,  even  though  we  have  decided  exactly 
what  the  problem  is  which  we  wish  to  discuss.     The 
procedure  to  be  followed  in  the  phrasing  of  the 
proposition  is  in  general  as  follows: 

First,  decide  in  your  own  mind  precisely  what  problem 
you  wish  to  argue  about. 

Second,  write  out  a  proposition  stating  that  problem 
in  words  as  accurately  as  you  can,  and 

Third,  go  over  this  proposition,  testing  each  word  in 
it,  and  the  various  combinations  of  words  in  it,  and  the 
proposition  as  a  whole,  looking  up  the  definitions  of  all 
doubtful  words,  to  see  whether  or  not,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  you  have  a  proposition  in  words  which  would  mean 
to  someone  else  precisely  what  you  wish  it  to  mean.  In 
other  words,  test  your  proposition  with  regard  to  what 
you  wish  it  to  mean,  test  it  to  see  what  it  actually  does 
mean  as  an  English  sentence,  and  then  if  it  is  not  satis- 
factory, change  it  until  it  does  state  precisely  the  prob- 
lem which  you  wish  to  discuss. 

E.  The  characteristics  of  a  good  proposition  for 
debate  are  listed  below,  and  show  in  detail  what 
should  be  the  tests  of  any  proposition,  whether  one 
which  you  are  phrasing,  or  one  which  someone  else 
has  phrased  and  which  you  are  testing.     Regard- 
less of  the  authorship  of  any  proposition,  if  it  is  in 


20  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

your  power  to  change  it  or  to  have  it  changed,  see 
to  it  before  a  discussion  is  held  (particularly  a  pub- 
lic discussion,  either  in  real  life  or  in  a  contest  de- 
bate) that  the  proposition  meets  the  following  re- 
quirements : 

1.  A  proposition  should  be  an  assertion, —  that 
is,  it  should  be  a  direct  affirmative  statement.     It 
should  not  be  a  term,  as  "  High  School  Fraterni- 
ties," nor  a  question,  as  "  Are  High  School  Fra- 
ternities Beneficial  ?  "  but  it  should  be  an  assertion, 
as  "  Resolved :  that  High  School  Fraternities  Should 
Be  Abolished  in  the  City  of  '  X.'  " 

2.  A    proposition  should   be  single.     It   is    ob- 
viously difficult  to  have  a  clean-cut  discussion  if 
there  are  two  problems  involved  in  the  proposition 
instead  of  one,  as,  for  instance,  "  Resolved :  that 
Interscholastic  Football  Should  Be  Abolished  and  a 
Glee  Club  Organized  in  the  'X'   High  School." 

3.  A    proposition    should    be    unambiguous.     A 
word  or  a  proposition  is  ambiguous  when  it  is  ca- 
pable of  two  or  more  meanings  or  interpretations. 
While  it  is  very  difficult  indeed  to  express  a  situa- 
tion which  is  at  all  complex  in  language  that  is 
sufficiently  unambiguous  so  that  no  possibility  of 
two    interpretations    remains,    it    is    usually    easy 
enough,  if  sufficient  care  is  exercised,  to  state  a 
proposition   in  terms   sufficiently   unambiguous   so 
that   one   meaning   and   only   one   meaning  could 
naturally  be  given  to  it.     "  Resolved :  that  Schools 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  21 

Should  not  be  Co-educational "  is  ambiguous,  be- 
cause the  term  "  schools  "  may  refer  to  so  many  dif- 
ferent types  of  institutions.  "  Resolved :  That 
Democracy  should  Triumph  in  the  November  Elec- 
tions "  is  ambiguous,  because  it  might  be  taken  to 
mean  either  the  principles  of  democracy  or  the 
Democratic  party.  Even  the  principles  of  democ- 
racy are  sufficiently  ambiguous  so  that  even  if  this 
term  were  used  instead,  one  might  still  be  left  in 
doubt  as  to  precisely  what  ticket  or  platform  or  can- 
didate you  desire  to  see  win.  Try  always  to  state 
propositions  in  accurate,  unambiguous  terms,  so 
that  anyone  reading  or  hearing  your  proposition 
will  know  as  precisely  as  may  be  just  what  you  de- 
sire to  have  believed  or  to  have  done. 

4.  A  proposition  should  be  unprejudiced.  A 
prejudiced  proposition  is  one  which  assumes  by  its 
terminology  some  point  or  points  which  should  be 
proved  as  part  of  the  argument.  For  instance, 
"  Resolved:  That  the  Brutal  Game  of  Football 
Should  be  Abolished,"  or  "  Resolved :  That  the  Use- 
less System  of  Final  Examinations  Should  be  Aban- 
doned," or  "  Resolved :  That  the  Undesirable  Japa- 
nese Should  be  Excluded  from  the  Public  Schools  " 
(or  from  the  country).  These  propositions  all  as- 
sume points  that  should  be  proved, —  namely,  "  that 
football  is  brutal " ;  "  that  final  examinations  are 
useless";  and  "that  Japanese  are  undesirable." 
i  Do  not  color  with  terms  of  praise  or  blame  a  propo- 


22  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

sition  for  use  in  argument.  State  in  unprejudiced 
terms  the  question  which  you  wish  to  have  debated, 
and  leave  for  the  argument  the  question  of  what 
may  be  assumed,  and  what  will  have  to  be  proved. 

5.  A  proposition  should  be  as  concrete  and  spe- 
cific as  possible.     It  is  well  to  qualify  this  statement 
with  the  words  "  as  possible,"  because  we  are  deal- 
ing here  with  relatively  and  not  absolutely  desirable 
qualities.     If  your  proposition  deals  with  an  ab- 
stract or  general  matter,  it  is  impossible  to  phrase  it 
in  concrete  and  specific  terms.     The  proper  thing 
to  do  is  to  make  your  proposition  as  concrete  and 
specific  as  the  nature  of  the  question  will  permit. 
Do  not  say,  "  Money  should  be  spent  for  a  dramatic 
coach,"    if   you   mean   specifically    that   "$ioo   at 
present   in  the  dramatic  club  treasury   should   be 
used  to  hire  Mr.  X  to  coach  the  club  play."     Do 
not   say,    "  Resolved :    That   the    School    Grounds 
Should  be  Improved/'  if  what  you  really  wish  to  de- 
bate is  the  question  of  grading  and  seeding  the 
south  lawn.     Do  not  say,  "  Trees  should  be  planted 
in  '  M  '  county,"  or  that  "  Reforesting  is  beneficial 
to  the  state,"  if  your  intention  is,  "  That  the  state 
government  should  appropriate  $10,000  a  year  for 
the  next  ten  years  for  the  reforesting  of  a  certain 
tract  of  state  land  in  '  M  '  county."     Make  your 
proposition  as  concrete  and  specific  as  the  circum- 
stances will  allow. 

6.  The  burden  of  proof  should  be  on  the  affirma- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  23 

live.  The  burden  of  proof  means  the  duty  of  prov- 
ing the  case.  The  duty  of  proving  the  case  is  al- 
ways upon  the  man  who  demands  a  change,  who 
objects  to  things  as  they  are,  who  brings  a  charge 
against  an  individual  or  an  institution.  In  other 
words,  the  burden  of  proof  is  always  upon  the  man 
who  zvill  be  left  unsatisfied  if  the  present  situation 
is  not  changed,  if  nothing  is  done,  no  new  beliefs 
accepted.  The  man  who  wants  federal  ownership 
and  operation  of  all  coal  mines  in  the  United  States 
is  the  man  who  will  lose  if  nothing  is  done  with 
regard  to  the  question,  the  man  who  would  still  be 
left  unsatisfied.  Therefore,  the  burden  of  proving 
that  the  federal  government  should  own  and  oper- 
ate all  coal  mines  is  squarely  upon  that  man.  The 
proposition  should  read :  "  Resolved :  That  the 
Federal  Government  Should  Own  and  Operate  All 
Coal  Mines  in  the  United  States."  An  improper 
wording  would  be :  "  Resolved :  That  Coal  Mines 
Should  be  Owned  and  Operated  by  Private  Com- 
panies," or  the  wording,  "  Resolved :  That  the  Fed- 
eral Government  should  not  Own  and  Operate  All 
Coal  Mines  in  the  County." 

The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  man  who  brings  a 
charge  of  wrong-doing  against  an  individual  or  an 
institution.  A  man  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  un- 
til he  is  proved  to  be  guilty.  Therefore,  all  state- 
ments of  propositions  which  raise  a  question  in 
regard  to  the  character,  ideals,  or  competence  of  in- 


24  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

dividuals  or  institutions  should  be  so  phrased  that 
the  affirmative  of  the  proposition  as  worded  shall 
have  the  burden  of  proving  the  case. 

It  does  not  matter,  so  far  as  burden  of  proof 
is  concerned,  whether  or  not  the  word  "  not "  is 
used  in  the  proposition.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
negatives  be  avoided  in  the  phrasing  of  the  prop- 
osition. For  instance,  as  far  as  affirmative  and 
negative  and  burden  of  proof  are  concerned,  the 
proposition,  "  Resolved :  That  United  States  Sena- 
tors Should  not  be  Elected  by  Popular  Vote,"  is 
perfectly  correct  at  the  present  time,  because  they 
are  now  so  elected,  and  the  affirmative  should  be 
the  side  demanding  a  change.  But  a  proposition 
should  be  phrased  in  terms  of  what  you  want  rather 
than  in  terms  of  what  you  do  not  want  (to  be  as 
concrete  and  specific  as  possible),  so  it  would  be 
better  to  say,  "  Resolved :  That  United  States  Sena- 
tors Should  be  Elected  by  the  Legislatures  of  the 
Various  Sjates."  But  as  far  as  burden  of  proof 
is  concerned,  either  proposition  is  correct,  and  the 
proposition  which  is  clearly  wrong  from  the  stand- 
point of  burden  of  proof  is,  "  Resolved :  that  United 
States  senators  should  be  elected  by  popular  vote." 
This  was  the  correct  wording  a  few  years  ago, 
but  since  this  method  has  been  adopted,  the  burden 
of  proof  now  falls  upon  anyone  who  desires  a  change 
in  the  system  as  it  is;  that  is,  the  burden  of  proof 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  25 

now  falls  upon  anyone  who  objects  to  popular  elec- 
tion of  senators. 

7.  The  proposition  should  be  as  brief  and  simple 
as  possible.     This  is  also  stated  with  a  qualification, 
because  brevity  and  simplicity  are  also  relative  quali- 
ties.    If  your  proposition  deals  with  a  complex  prob- 
lem, accuracy  may  demand  a  very  long  and  very 
complex  proposition,  and  accuracy  should  always : 
have  the  right  of  way  over  brevity  or  simplicity. 
When  you  have  used  the  fewest  and  the  simplest 
words  which  will  accurately  state  what  you  want  to 
say  in  your  proposition,  then  you  have  fulfilled  this 
requirement.     Strike  out   every   superfluous   word 
in  order  to  gain  brevity.     Choose  always  the  sim- 
plest word  which  will  express  your  meaning  in  or- 
der to  gain  simplicity,   but  never  sacrifice  exact- 
ness, clearness,  accuracy,  for  either  brevity  or  sim- 
plicity. 

8.  A  proposition  should  be  debatable.     That  is, 
it  should  not  be  one-sided.     The  proposition,  "  Re- 
solved: That  the  Earth  is  Flat,"  is  no  longer  de- 
batable.    Propositions  that  are  obviously  true  or 
false  or  substantially  so  when  the  evidence  is  pre- 
sented *  are  not  good  propositions  for  debate.     A 
proposition  which  simply  deals  with  personal  opin- 
ions, personal  taste,  personal  choice,  is  not  debatable, 

1  See  what  is  said  about  questions  to  be  investigated  rather 
than  debated,  under  c.  p.  21. 


26  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

as,  "  Resolved :  That  Mince  Pie  is  Better  than  Ap- 
ple Pie."  Propositions  which  simply  raise  a  ques- 
tion of  definition  of  terms  are  not  debatable,  as, 
"  Resolved :  That  Kipling's  Barrack-Room  Ballads 
are  Great  Poetry."  This  simply  raises  a  question 
(for  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  ballads)  as 
to  what  is  properly  covered  by  the  term  "  great 
poetry."  Agree  upon  your  definition  of  great 
poetry,  and  there  is  no  debate  possible.  If  you 
wish  to  debate  what  properly  the  term  "  great 
poetry  "  ought  to  mean,  or  does  mean,  then  phrase 
the  proposition  frankly  raising  that  question. 
Propositions  dealing  with  such  a  combination  of 
questions  of  definition,  and  questions  of  personal 
taste,  as  are  contained  in  comparisons  of  one  sort 
or  another  are  always  poor  propositions  for  debate, 
because  really  not  debatable.  For  instance,  "  Re- 
solved: That  Medicine  is  not  a  More  Noble  Pro- 
fession than  Law,"  or,  "  Resolved :  That  General 
Sherman  was  a  Greater  American  than  Patrick 
Henry." 

9.  Propositions  should  be  interesting  when  they 
are  to  be  used  as  the  subjects  of  public  contest  de- 
bates. This  qualification  obviously  does  not  apply 
to  propositions  which  we  meet  in  real  life.  If 
you  are  a  member  of  a  legislature,  you  will  prob- 
ably be  called  upon  to  vote,  if  not  to  speak,  upon 
all  sorts  of  propositions  whether  you  are  interested 
in  them  or  not;  certainly  whether  or  not  the  gen- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  27 

eral  public  is  interested.  But  the  good  results  which 
may  follow  from  contest  debating  are  greatly  en- 
hanced when  the  propositions  used  in  the  debates  are 
genuinely  interesting  to  the  contestants  and  to  the 
audiences  which  may  hear  the  debates. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Write  out  ten  good  propositions  for  debate,  of  which 
six  shall  be  propositions  of  policy,  four  propositions  of 
fact. 

2.  Phrase  good  propositions  for  debate  on  some  phase 
of  each  of  the  following  subjects  (these  terms  need  not 
necessarily  be  used  in  the  propositions)  :    Interscholastic 
debating.     College  entrance  examinations.     Final  course 
examinations.     Military  preparation.     Liquor  regulation. 
Woman  suffrage.     Local  water  supply.     Early  local  his- 
tory.    School   discipline   or   government.    School   build- 
ings. 

NOTE 

Lists  of  ready  made  propositions  for  debate  are  omitted 
from  this  book,  in  the  thought  that  it  will  be  much  better 
for  students  to  phrase  their  own  resolutions  according  to 
the  suggestions  of  this  chapter  than  to  depend  upon  any 
ready  made  list.  Propositions  should  be  phrased  on  subjects 
of  real  interest  to  the  students,  and  which  can  be  studied 
and  investigated  under  the  actual  conditions  surrounding  the 
students  concerned.  Local  questions,  school  questions,  or 
questions  suggested  by  the  news  or  editorials  of  the  daily 
press  of  any  section  of  the  country,  ought  to  be  most  valu- 
able. Further  suggestions  may  be  gathered  by  examining 
such  periodicals  as  the  New  Republic,  the  Review,  the  Nation, 
the  Outlook,  the  World's  Work,  the  Review  of  Reviews, 
Current  Opinion,  etc.,  etc. 


CHAPTER  III 

ANALYSIS 

A.  The   problem  of   analysis. 

B.  Burden  of  proof  and  burden  of  rebuttal. 

C.  The  issues. 

1.  Example  in  law. 

2.  Example  in  general  argument. 

3.  Kinds   of  issues. 

D.  The  partition. 

E.  Stock   issues. 

i.  Stock  issues  must  be  analyzed. 

F.  The   affirmative   case. 

G.  The  negative  case. 

1.  Pure    refutation. 

2.  Defense  of  the  present. 

3.  Adjustment  or  repairs. 

4.  Counter  proposition. 
H.  Winning  and  losing. 

A.  The  problem   of  analysis.     Having   decided 
upon  a  properly  worded  proposition  for  debate,  dis- 
cussion,  or   speech,   the   next  problem   is   that   of 
analyzing  the  proposition  to  find  out  precisely  the 
work  that  must  be  done  to  establish  it  if  we  are 
on  the  affirmative,  and  to  prevent  its  establishment 
if  we  are  on  the  negative. 

B.  Burden  of  proof  and  burden  of  rebuttal.     The 
first  consideration  in  this  part  of  our  work  is  the 
problem  of  the  burden  of  proof.     It  was  said  in 

28 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  29 

the  last  chapter  that  the  proposition  should  be  so 
phrased  that  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  affirma- 
tive. Now  the  burden  of  proof  is  always  on  the 
actual  affirmative,  on  the  side  which  has  the  risk 
of  the  proposition,  on  the  side  which  will  lose  if 
nothing  is  done.  The  proposition  should  be  so 
worded  that  this  falls  on  the  affirmative  of  the 
verbal  proposition.  This  burden  of  proving  the 
case  rests  upon  the  affirmative  then,  and  never  shifts. 
Nothing  which  may  happen  in  the  trial  of  a  case 
or  a  debate  on  a  proposition  can  possibly  place  upon 
the  negative  the  burden  of  proving  the  proposition 
under  discussion.  If  the  affirmative  succeeds  in  es- 
tablishing what  is  called  a  prima  facie  case,  then 
the  burden  of  refuting  that  case  is  on  the  negative. 
A  prima  fade  case  is  a  case  which  is  strong  enough 
to  win  if  it  is  not  answered.  When  the  affirmative 
has  established  a  case  strong  enough  to  win  if  the 
negative  does  not  refute  it,  then  the  negative  has  a 
burden  of  rebuttal.  To  call  this  a  shifted  burden 
of  proof  is  misleading  and  inaccurate.  It  is  only 
a  burden  of  rebuttal,  and  should  be  so  labelled. 
If  the  negative  presents  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
prima  facie  case  of  the  affirmative,  they  have  car- 
ried their  burden  of  rebuttal  satisfactorily,  and  they 
may  be  said  to  have  shifted  the  burden  of  rebuttal 
to  the  affirmative,  which  must  now  refute  what  the 
negative  has  established,  or  suffer  the  consequences. 
So  the  burden  of  rebuttal,  the  task  of  answering 


30  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

what  has  been  put  up  by  the  other  side,  may  be 
shifted  from  side  to  side,  but  the  burden  of  the 
proposition  under  discussion  is,  if  the  proposition 
is  well  phrased,  always  on  the  affirmative  and  can 
never  shift. 

C.  The  issues.  The  principal  object  o-f  all  care- 
ful analysis  of  propositions  is  to  discover  the  issue 
or  the  issues.  There  may  be  one  issue,  or  there 
may  be  more  than  one.  The  term  is  usually  used 
in  the  plural,  although  it  should  be  well  under- 
stood that  in  some  cases  there  is  only  one  issue. 
We  will,  however,  conform  to  the  usual  custom 
^of_  using  the  term  "  issues."  /The  issues  are  the 
questions  the  affirmative  side  of  which  must  be  es- 
tablished by  the  affirmative,  or  admitted  by  the 
negative,  in  order  to  establish  the  proposition. 
They  are  the  necessarily  and  inherently  vital  points, 
elements,  or  sub-propositions,  upon  the  establish- 
ment or  the  satisfaction  of  which  depends  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  proposition.  They  are  not  sim- 
ply main  points,  or  important  points,  or  points  on 
which  there  is  a  clash  of  opinion.  They  are  those 
particular  points  on  which  there  is  a  vital  clash  of 
opinion,  points  so  vital  that  if  the  negative  succeed 
in  blocking  the  establishment  of  any  one  of  them, 
the  affirmative  case  fails.  The  theory  of  issues,  in 
general  argumentation  and  debate,  is  borrowed  di- 
rectly from  legal  procedure,  and  in  our  analysis  of 
propositions,  in  our  discovery  of  issues,  we  should 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  31 

follow  that  procedure  as  far  as  it  is  clearly  ap- 
plicable to  our  problems.  Let  us  illustrate  the  na- 
ture of  issues  by  two  propositions,  one  in  law  and 
one  in  general  argument. 

i.  Example  in  law.  Suppose,  for  the  legal  ex- 
ample, that  "  A  "  is  accused  of  burglary  at  common 
law.  Now  burglary  at  common  law  was  a  crime 
made  up  of  five  distinct  elements.  If  any  one  ele- 
ment was  lacking,  the  crime  of  burglary  had  not 
been  committed.  So  when  a  man  was  accused  of 
burglary  there  were  necessarily  five  issues,  each  one 
of  which  the  affirmative  must  either  establish  or  get 
the  negative  to  admit.  Burglary  consisted  of  (i) 
breaking  and  (2)  entering,  (3)  a  dwelling,  (4)  at 
night,  (5)  with  felonious  intent.  If  the  door  was 
open  so  that  the  accused  did  not  break,  he  did  not 
commit  the  crime  of  burglary,  regardless  of  what 
other  crimes  he  may  have  committed.  If  he  did 
not  enter,  simply  looked  in  or  threw  in  something, 
he  did  not  commit  the  crime  of  burglary.  If  the 
building  entered  was  not  a  dwelling,  burglary  was 
not  committed.  Murder,  larceny,  or  other  crimes 
may  have  been  committed  in  the  building,  but  if  the 
building  was  not  a  dwelling,  there  was  no  burglary. 
If  the  affair  did  not  take  place  at  night,  the  crime 
of  burglary  was  not  committed.  If  it  was  not  done 
with  felonious  intent,  burglary  was  not  committed. 
For  instance,  if  a  man  broke  and  entered  a  dwelling 
house  at  night  for  the  purpose  of  saving  someone 


32  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

from  a  fire  or  other  danger,  he  did  not  commit  the 
crime  of  burglary.  All  the  elements  are  present 
but  one,  which  was  felonious  intent.  Now  any  per- 
son accused  of  burglary  who  could  prevent  the 
state  from  establishing  any  one  of  these  five  ele- 
ments necessarily  had  to  be  acquitted  of  that  par- 
ticular charge.  Proving  four  fifths  of  the  case 
was  not  sufficient  for  the  affirmative  —  all  five  is- 
sues had  to  be  established  or  admitted.  The  nega- 
tive might  admit  any  four  of  them  without  discus- 
sion, then  prevent  the  establishment  of  the  fifth, 
and  win. 

2.  Example  in  general  argument.  Only  ques- 
tions which  are  vital  in  this  strict  sense  of  the  word 
can  be  issues,  either  in  law  or  in  general  argument. 
Suppose  a  new  army  camp  is  being  built  in  a  cer- 
tain part  of  the  country,  and  a  question  arises  as 
to  a  water  supply  for  the  camp.  Let  us  assume 
the  proposition :  "  Resolved :  that  Camp  Washing- 
ton should  use  the  water  of  the  Brown  river." 
Now  what  are  the  issues?  What  are  the  things 
that  must  be  established  or  admitted  before  it  will 
be  accepted  that  Camp  Washington  ought  to  use 
this  particular  river  water  for  its  water  supply? 
Any  water  supply  has  to  meet  three  tests:  there 
must  be  sufficient  water,  the  water  must  be  pure 
enough,  and  it  must  be  possible  to  obtain  it  (that 
is,  sufficiently  accessible,  cheap  enough).  In  other 
words,  the  quantity,  the  quality,  and  the  accessibil- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  33 

ity  or  price  to  be  paid,  are  all  vital  considerations 
in  a  water  supply  question.  So  our  issues  in  this 
proposition  would  probably  be  something  as  fol- 
lows :  ( i )  Does  the  Brown  river  afford  a  sufficient 
water  supply  for  Camp  Washington?  (2)  Is  the 
water  of  the  Brown  river  pure  enough?  (3)  Is 
such  a  water  supply  satisfactory  from  the  stand- 
point of  cost,  or  in  other  words,  will  it  be  cheap 
enough?  Now  if  the  negative  wishes  to  admit  that 
there  is  water  enough  in  the  river,  and  that  it  is 
cheap  enough,  but  can  establish  that  it  is  impure 
(unsatisfactory  in  quality),  the  affirmative  case 
fails.  If  the  negative  admit  that  the  water  is  good 
enough  and  cheap  enough,  but  that  there  is  not 
enough  of  it,  that  the  camp  cannot  get  along  on 
such  a  supply,  the  affirmative  case  fails.  Or  if 
the  negative  will  admit  that  the  water  is  pure  enough 
and  that  there  is  enough  of  it,  but  that  the  cost  is 
prohibitive,  that  the  river  is  so  far  from  the  camp, 
across  so  many  miles  of  difficult  territory  that  the 
cost  of  bringing  the  water  to  the  camp  would  be 
too  great,  then  the  affirmative  case  fails;  or  the 
negative  may  admit  one  and  fight  on  the  other  two ; 
or  the  negative  may  oppose  all  three.  These  three 
questions  illustrate  the  theory  of  issues  as  applied 
to  questions  in  general  argumentation. 

3.  Kinds  of  issues.  All  questions  may  be  an- 
alyzed in  much  the  same  manner,  though  all,  of 
course,  are  not  so  easy  to  analyze  as  these  ex- 


34  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

amples.  The  issues  may  be  discovered  with  suffi- 
cient study  and  investigation  in  any  proposition 
provided  that  the  person  seeking  to  find  the  issues 
knows  what  issues  are.  No  amount  of  analysis 
and  study  and  thinking  will  discover  the  issues 
to  a  student  who  has  a  false  conception  as  to  what 
constitutes  issues.  So  in  all  your  analysis  you  must 
keep  steadily  in  mind  that  you  are  looking  for  those 
fundamentally  vital  questions,  every  one  of  which 
the  affirmative  must  establish  in  order  to  establish 
its  case.  These  questions  are  so  vital  that  if  the 
negative  prevents  the  affirmative  from  establishing 
a  single  one,  the  whole  affirmative  case  fails.  This 
analysis  will  be  assisted  if  we  keep  in  mind  certain 
terms  that  may  be  applied  to  issues,  or  "  the  kinds 
of  issues  "  we  deal  with  at  different  steps  in  the 
process.  The  list  of  fundamentally  vital  questions 
in  its  entirety,  before  those  questions  which  the 
negative  admit  have  been  subtracted  from  it,  is 
made  up  of  what  should  be  called  the  potential  is- 
sues. The  five  elements  in  burglary  constitute  the 
potential  issues.  Those  elements  which  the  nega- 
tive will  admit  may  be  called  admitted  issues,  that 
is,  they  would  have  been  issues  had  the  negative 
fought  on  them.  The  negative  having  admitted 
them,  they  drop  out  of  consideration.  The  points 
left,  on  which  when  the  case  is  tried  or  the  argu- 
ment is  held,  the  negative  and  affirmative  actually 
oppose  each  other,  are  the  actual  issues  or  the  fight- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION"  35 

ing  issues.  So  in  any  question,  seek  by  careful 
study  to  find  the  potential  issues.  Then  if  on  the 
negative,  subtract  those  you  are  willing  to  admit, 
and  prepare  to  fight  on  the  others.  If  on  the  affir- 
mative, find  out  directly  if  possible  what  the  nega- 
tive is  willing  to  admit.  If  this  cannot  be  done  (as 
in  a  contest  debate  usually)  determine  by  studying 
the  possibilities  what  the  negative  will  probably  ad- 
mit and  spend  most  of  your  time  on  the  other  ques- 
tions. But  in  the  absence  of  a  formal  admission, 
be  ready  to  offer  the  best  possible  affirmative  proof 
on  all  issues. 

D.  The  partition.  The  "  points  in  partition  "  are 
often  confused  with  the  "  issues."  A  partition  is 
simply  a  plan  of  speaking  or  writing  which  a  per- 
son or  a  group  (as  a  debating  team)  proposes  to 
follow.  This  plan  may  be  exactly  parallel  to  the 
issues,  or  it  may  contain  additional  points  —  such  as 
a  big  point  in  refutation  which  is  aimed  at  a  source 
of  information  used  by  the  other  side.  For  in- 
stance, in  the  water  supply  case,  the  affirmative 
might  present  its  case  under  four  points.  This 
water  supply  is  pure  enough,  it  is  sufficient,  it  is 
accessible,  and  fourth,  the  alleged  expert  on  which 
our  opponents  base  their  claim  of  impurity  is  a 
fraud.  The  affirmative  might  wish  to  make  so 
much  of  the  fact  that  the  negative  case  is  based 
upon  a  fraudulent  report  that  they  would  bring 
this  consideration  into  the  case  as  a  main  point 


36  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

and  devote  as  much  time  to  it  as  to  any  one  of  the 
issues,  or  even  more  time.  But  of  course  the  char- 
acter of  a  man  cannot  be  an  inherently  vital  con- 
sideration in  a  water  supply  question.  It  is  of  only 
accidental  importance.  The  issues  should  always 
be  covered  by  the  points  in  partition,  of  course; 
but  for  purposes  of  presentation  to  an  audience, 
two  or  more  issues  might  be. combined  under  a  single 
main  point,  or  one  issue  may  be  split  up  into  three 
main  points,  or  main  points  may  be  simply  added, 
to  the  enumeration  of  the  issues,  so  while  the  state- 
ment of  the  issues  and  the  statement  of  the  points 
in  partition  will  be  necessarily  closely  related,  they 
will  not  necessarily  be  precisely  parallel.  The 
statement  of  the  partition  is  a  problem  in  outlining, 
and,  as  in  all  problems  in  outlining,  should  be 
worked  out  with  the  particular  audience,  occasion, 
time  limit,  etc.,  in  mind.  So  sometimes  it  will  dif- 
fer greatly  from  the  issues. 

E.  Stock  issues.  For  propositions  of  policy 
which  have  to  do  with  systems  or  methods  of  at- 
tending to  affairs  which  have  to  be  attended  to  on 
some  basis  or  other,  it  is  always  possible  to  start  the 
analysis  with  two  big  questions  which  might  be 
called  the  "  stock  issues."  These  questions  are : 
"  Is  there  something  wrong  with  our  present  system 
or  present  situation?  "  and  second,  "  Is  the  change 
advocated  by  the  affirmative  the  proper  remedy  ?  " 
These  two  stock  issues  may  be  phrased  differently 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  37 

as:  Is  there  a  cause  for  action?  and,  Is  this  the 
action  we  ought  to  take?  Is  there  something 
wrong?  and,  Will  this  make  it  right?  Do  we  need 
a  change?  Is  this  the  change  we  need?  But  re- 
gardless of  the  phraseology  employed,  the  stock  is- 
sues always  raise  two  questions :  ( i )  whether  there 
is  something  wrong  with  the  present,  and  (2) 
whether  or  not  the  affirmative  is  proposing  the 
proper  course  of  action  to  take  provided  there  is 
something  wrong.  While  it  is  inaccurate  to  say 
that  these  stock  issues  may  apply  to  every  proposi- 
tion for  debate,  it  is  correct  to  say  that  we  may  ap- 
ply them  to  every  proposition  of  policy  which  deals 
with  a  change  in  regard  to  some  system  of  handling 
affairs  which  must  be  taken  care  of  as  we  are  now 
taking  care  of  them,  or  else  in  some  other  way, 
such  as  problems  dealing  with  education,  trans- 
portation, government,  public  health,  etc.,  etc.  In 
other  words,  practically  all  propositions  of  policy 
of  the  sort  used  in  practice  or  contest  debates  are 
such  that  the  stock  issues  apply  to  them. 

i.  Stock  issues  must  be  analysed.  The  stock  is- 
sues should  be  the  beginning,  not  the  end,  of  an 
analysis.  It  is  unsafe  to  accept  them  as  neces- 
sarily the  issues  in  any  case  without  further  study 
and  investigation,  for  two  reasons.  First,  it  may 
be  discovered  that  a  very  much  more  specific  and  ac- 
curate wording  will  be  found  than  is  found  in  the 
general  phraseology  suggested  above.  The  issue 


38  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

may  be  specifically,  "  Is  the  present  water  supply 
adequate?"  or  "  Is  the  present  city  administration 
dishonest  ?  "  or  "  Is  our  present  transportation  sys- 
tem inefficient?"  etc.  And  in  the  second  place,  it 
may  be  possible  to  break  up  one  of  the  stock  issues, 
particularly  the  second  one,  into  two  or  three  ques- 
tions each  of  which  is  an  issue,  that  is,  each  of  which 
is  so  vital  that  the  affirmative  must  establish  or 
gain  an  admission  of  each  and  every  one  of  them, 
or  the  affirmative  case  fails.  In  the  question  of 
changing  a  city  water  supply,  for  instance,  the  sec- 
ond stock  issue,  the  question  of  the  proper  action 
to  take  will  be  answered  only  by  answering  whether 
or  not  the  supply  advocated  by  the  affirmative  is 
large  enough,  pure  enough,  and  cheap  enough.  If 
the  negative  blocks  the  establishment  of  one  of 
these  three  considerations,  the  whole  affirmative 
proposition  fails,  so  that  you  really  have  four  po- 
tential issues  instead  of  three.  But  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  whenever  you  can  break  up  a  stock 
issue  into  smaller  and  more  definite  questions  these 
smaller  and  more  definite  questions  are  not  neces- 
sarily issues.  Suppose,  for  example,  under  a  prop- 
osition dealing  with  reorganization  of  a  factory,  that 
the  second  stock  issue  stated  specifically  is  (as,  of 
course,  it  might  well  be) ,  "Is  the  proposed  system 
financially  satisfactory?"  Suppose  you  break  this 
up  into  the  questions :  "  Will  it  permit  of  cheaper 
raw  material?  "  "  Will  it  permit  of  saving  in  ad- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  39 

vertising?  "  "  Will  it  increase  the  sales?  "  These 
are  three  different  ways  of  showing  financial  ad- 
vantage, but  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  financial 
advantage  in  each  of  them,  nor  in  any  one  of  them. 
No  one  of  these  is  inherently  vital  —  the  total  must 
show  financial  advantage,  and  financial  advantage  is 
the  issue  to  be  established  any  way  the  affirmative  is 
able  to  establish  it.  So  these  minor  questions  can- 
not be  issues. 

The  following  analysis  of  a  "  water  works  "  ques- 
tion may  help  to  make  this  clear. 

I.    The  stock  issues: 

A.  Is  their  something  wrong  with  the  present 

water  system?  and 

B.  Is  the  proposed  change  the  proper  remedy? 
On  investigation  and  further  analysis  result  in  the  fol- 
lowing : 

II.     Potential  issues: 

A.  Is  the  present  supply  inadequate? 
vB.  Is  the  proposed  supply  adequate? 

C.  Is  the  proposed  supply  pure  enough? 

D.  Is  the  proposed  supply  sufficiently  accessible 

(or   cheap   enough) ? 

Then  if  the  negative  is  willing  to  admit  B.  and  D.  of 
this  group  we  may  list  as 

III.  Admitted  issues : 

A.  The  proposed  supply  is  adequate. 

B.  The  proposed  supply  is  cheap  enough. 
And  we  will  have  remaining  as  the  actual  issues  for 

the  debate: 

IV.  Actual  issues,  or  fighting  issues: 

A.  Is  the  present  supply  inadequate? 


40  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

B.  Is  the  proposed  supply  pure? 

F.  The  affirmative  case.  Closely  allied  to  the 
problem  of  discovering  issues  in  any  proposition  is 
the  problem  of  determining  exactly  what  sort  of  case 
shall  be  undertaken  by  each  side,  whether  affirm- 

Ktive  or  negative.  v  The  affirmative  case  does  not 
dmit  of  much  variation.  Somehow  or  other  the 
affirmative  must  establish,  or  gain  the  admission  of, 
each  issue  in  the  proposition.  The  affirmative  has 
the  burden  of  proof  on  each  issue.  If  the  affirma- 
tive knows  that  the  negative  will  admit  one  of  the 
potential  issues,  the  fact  may  simply  be  stated  in 
the  introduction  and  then  dropped.  If  the  affirma- 
tive feels  that  the  negative  will  probably  admit  cer- 
tain of  the  issues,  they  may  hold  in  reserve  their 
constructive  proof  of  these  points,  until  they  can 
determine  in  the  actual  contest  whether  or  not,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  negative  will  make  the  de- 
sired admissions.  But  the  nature  of  the  case  which 
the  affirmative  will  maintain  on  the  platform  in 
any  debate  is  necessarily,  as  a  minimum,  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  affirmative  side  of  each  poten- 
tial issue  which  the  negative  will  not  admit.  Now 
they  may  establish  these  issues  in  any  way  that  is 
legitimate  and  proper.  It  is  their  case.  Theirs 
is  the  burden  of  proving  it;  and  theirs,  of  course, 
must  be  the  choice  of  means  and  methods.  So 
that  after  discovering  issues  and  deciding  which 
ones  it  will  be  necessary  to  prove  constructively,  the 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  41 

affirmative  may  then  take  up  the  question  of  out- 
lining the  proof  of  these  issues,  of  partitioning  the 
case  in  any  way  that  seems  good  to  them.  In  such 
partition,  it  is,  of  course,  possible  that  the  affirma- 
tive will  include  certain  points,  such  for  instance, 
as  a  major  point  in  refutation,  which  would  not 
be  covered  by  any  issue.  If  the  negative,  for  in- 
stance, is  basing  a  large  part  of  its  case  upon  the 
results  obtained  in  a  given  factory  under  a  given 
system,  the  affirmative  may  wish  to  put  into  their 
main  case  as  a  principal  point  the  contention  that 
this  particular  factory  is  not  a  fair  sample  to  use 
in  the  discussion  and  that  any  conclusions  which  .the 
negative  draws  from  the  results  in  this  factory  are 
untrustworthy  and  misleading.  Such  a  contention 
is  often  found  as  a  main  point  of  the  affirmative 
case,  and  it  is  not  necessarily  covered  by  any  is- 
sue. Details  of  outlining  will  be  more  easily 
grasped  after  studying  the  chapter  of  brief  draw- 
ing and  outlining. 

G.  The  negative  case.  In  deciding  upon  a  nega- 
tive case,  there  is  much  more  opportunity  for  vari- 
ous choices.  Somehow  or  other  the  negative  must 
in  the  course  of  the  debate  block  at  least  one  issue^x 
That  is,  they  must  prevent  the  affirmative  from  es- 
tablishing at  least  one  vital  contention,  but  this 
defines  their  duty  rather  than  explains  methods  of 
meeting  it.  This  duty  may  be  performed  in  differ- 
ent ways  according  to  circumstances.  There  are, 


42  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

however,   four  well  recognized  types   of  negative 
cases. 

1.  Pure  refutation.     Sometimes  the  negative  can 
accomplish   its  purpose  simply   by  explaining  the 
weakness  of  the  affirmative  case,  simply  by  show- 
ing that  there  is  no  merit  whatever  in  the  charge 
or  recommendation  which  is  contained  in  the  propo- 
sition. (  Of  course,  such  a  case  is  not  possible  very 
often.     It  is  practically  never  possible  in  contest 

(  debating.  It  is  sometimes  met  in  the  courtroom 
\  and  the  legislature  and  in  various  cases  in  real  life 
in  which  some  person  makes  a  recommendation  or 
brings  a  charge  which  is  so  unwise  or  unsound  that 
it  can  be  dismissed  without  doing  much  more  than 
pointing  out  its  inherent  weakness.  This  type  of 
negative  case  should  never  be  relied  upon  when  the 
affirmative  has  an  opportunity  to  establish  anything 
of  any  strength  whatever  in  favor  of  their  side  of 
the  proposition. 

2.  Defense  of  the  present,  or  a  positive  defense 
of  the  negative  presumption.     Since  the  burden  of 
proof  is  always  with  the  affirmative,  the  presump- 
tion (of  innocence  or  satisfaction)  is  always  with 
the  negative  in  any  properly  worded  proposition. 
The  first  type  of  negative  case  which  we  have  just 
mentioned  is  devoted  simply  to  the  work  of  bring- 
ing out  the  idea  that  the  affirmative  is  totally  un- 
able to  carry  its  burden  of  proof.     This   second 
type  of  negative  case  goes  further  than  that,  and 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  43 

adds  to  pure  refutation  a  positive  defense  of  the 
negative  presumption.  This  is  particularly  well  il- 
lustrated in  propositions  of  policy  which  recom- 
mend changes  in  our  present  methods  of  tending 
to  affairs.  Here  often  the  negative  in  addition  to 
making  as  much  as  possible  of  the  affirmative's 
difficulty  with  the  burden  of  proof,  bring  in  posi- 
tive proof  to  show  that  the  present,  the  situation 
as  we  have  it,  is  satisfactory.  In  this  case  the 
negative  "  stands  pat "  on  the  existing  situation, 
and  defends  it  against  criticism  and  attack.  This 
is  a  stronger  case  than  No.  i  and  is  more  frequently 
heard,  but  it  is  still  a  dangerous  position  to  take 
if  the  affirmative  have  very  much  to  say  to  justify 
their  cause  for  action. 

3.  Adjustment  or  repairs.  A  third  type  of  nega- 
tive case  is  one  which  admits  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  the  criticisms  of  the  affirmative,  which 
takes  the  position  that  the  present  is  not  perfect,  that 
it  is  well  to  repair  or  reform  what  we  have,  but 
it  denies  that  the  affirmative  contention  is  sound, 
and  that  it  is  necessary  to  adopt  the  line  of  action 
which  the  affirmative  suggests.  It  is  substantially 
a  defense  of  the  present,  a  defense  of  the  original 
negative  presumption,  but  it  yields  a  little  to  the 
force  of  the  affirmative's  proof,  and  admits  that 
some  changes  or  repairs  might  be  made,  and  recom- 
mend the  making  of  such  changes  or  repairs.  In 
other  words,  it  says,  "  Do  not  build  a  new  house, 


44  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

repair  the  one  you  have."  This  is  probably  the 
most  common  type  of  negative  case  met  either  in 
contest  debating  or  in  various  fields  of  activity  in 
real  life. 

^4.  Counter-propositions.  The  most  daring  and 
radical  case  which  the  negative  may  choose  is  a 
case  built  on  a  counter-proposition.  In  this  case 
the  negative  admits  that  the  present  is  indefensible, 
it  does  not  attempt  to  justify  the  existing  situa- 
tidn,  but  agrees  with  the  affirmative  as  to  the  cause 
for  action,  either  categorically  or  "  for  the  sake  of 
argument."  "But,"  says  the  negative,  "  even  if 
the  present  is  wrong,  the  proposition  of  the  affirma- 
tive is  also  wrong."  In  other  words,  it  admits  that 
there  is  a  disease,  but  denies  either  that  the  affirma- 
tive have  made  the  proper  diagnosis,  or  are  offering 
the  proper  remedy,  j  It  admits  that  we  need  a  new 
house,  but  says  tha't  the  affirmative  are  not  advo- 
cating the  kind  of  house  which  we  need.  It  ad- 
mits that  something  is  wrong,  but  takes  the  posi- 
tion that  the  affirmative  are  not  advocating  the 
proper  method  of  remedy.  This  is  the  most  radi- 
cal case  which  the  negative  can  undertake,  and 
should  never  be  undertaken  unless  the  negative  is 
willing  to  stand  by  all  that  is  implied  in  a  counter- 
proposition  case.  Such  a  case  usually  admits  one 
of  the  issues  of  the  affirmative,  often  admits  at 
the  start  the  truth  of  the  affirmative  cause  for  ac- 
tion, and  this  necessarily  advances  the  cause  of 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  45 

the  affirmative  by  so  much.  It  admits  that  the  af- 
firmative is  right  in  bringing  its  criticism,  and  then 
falls  back  simply  on  the  one  contention  that  their 
remedy  is  wrong.  Furthermore,  this  case  can  only 
be  properly  undertaken  when  the  negative  is  willing 
to  state  its  counter-proposition  with  perfect  frank- 
ness and  clearness.  If  you  say  that  we  must  have 
a  new  house,  but  we  must  not  have  the  kind  of 
house  that  the  affirmative  wants,  then  clearly  you 
cannot  dodge  the  responsibility  of  stating  what  kind 
of  a  house  we  should  have.  If  you  admit  the  dis- 
ease, but  deny  that  the  remedy  proposed  is  the  cor- 
rect one,  then  you  must  at  once  tell  what  the  cor- 
rect remedy  is.  Not  only  that,  but  in  the  second 
place,  the  negative  must  be  very  sure  that  the  coun- 
ter-proposition which  they  offer  is  actually  counter. 
That  is,  it  must  be  positively  inconsistent  with  what 
the  affirmative  is  offering.  A  slight  variation  of 
the  affirmative's  remedy,  a  slight  addition  to  it,  or 
modification  of  it,  will  not  do.  If  the  affirmative 
says,  "  Let  us  have  a  three-story  house,"  the  coun- 
ter-proposition must  not  simply  say,  "  Let  us  have  a 
brick  house."  It  must  be  a  remedy  the  acceptance 
of  which  will  necessarily  eliminate  the  remedy  of- 
fered by  the  affirmative.  I  have  listened  to  con- 
test debates  in  which  the  negative  was  obviously  try- 
ing to  rely  upon  a  counter-proposition  case,  but  in 
which  they  failed  to  make  their  proposition  clear, 
and  in  which  the  nature  of  that  proposition  (as  it 


46  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

could  be  inferred  by  the  listener)  was  not  incon- 
sistent with  what  the  affirmative  was  arguing  for. 
These  two  principles  in  regard  to  counter-proposi- 
tion cases  should  be  very  carefully  adhered  to. 

To  illustrate  these  types  of  cases,  suppose  the 
proposition  to  be  "  Resolved :  that  the  town  of  X 
should  build  a  new  High  School."  i.  Pure  refuta- 
tion would  consist  in  attacking  whatever  the  affirma- 
tive offered,  showing  how  they  fail  to  make  out  any 
good  case  for  a  new  school  simply  by  discussing 
their  arguments  without  actively  defending  the 
present  building.  2.  Defense  of  the  present  would 
add  to  the  attack  on  the  arguments  of  the  affirma- 
tive positive  argument  to  show  that  the  present  high 
school  is  perfectly  satisfactory,  that  no  change  of 
any  kind  is  needed.  3.  Adjustment  or  repairs, 
would  admit  that  there  is  something  in  what  the 
affirmative  says,  but  would  cla-im  and  try  to  prove, 
that  the  proper  course  is  not  to  build  a  new  build- 
ing but  to  fix  up  the  old  one  —  to  put  in  new 
heating  plant,  new  fire  escapes,  etc.  4.  Counter- 
proposition,  would  admit  the  whole  case  of  the  af- 
firmative as  far  as  the  present  building  is  concerned, 
no  attempt  to  defend  the  present  would  be  made, 
the  cause  for  action  would  be  admitted  in  full,  but 
the  action  to  be  taken  would  be  the  point  of  con- 
tention. The  negative  might  say  by  way  of  counter 
proposition  that  the  right  thing  to  do  would  be  to 
abandon  the  high  school,  organize  an  auto-bus  serv- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  47 

ice  and  take  all  high  school  students  for  the  town  of 
X  to  the  big  high  school  in  the  nearby  city  of  Y. 

H.  Winning  and  losing.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  what  has  been  said  in  this  chapter  in  regard  to 
winning  and  losing,  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of 
the  affirmative  establishing  all  of  the  issues  of  its 
case  or  else  losing,  refers  to  actual  debates  in  real 
life.  This  is  not  the  proper  basis  for  a  decision 
in  contest  debating. , *-The  judge  of  a  contest  de- 
bate should  be  called  in  to  give  an  expert  opinion  J 
as  to  which  side  does  better  debating.  He  should 
never  be  asked  or  allowed  to  render  a  decision 
based  upon  his  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
affirmative  has  proved  its  case. /The  restrictions 
which  necessarily  govern  contest  debating  between 
schools,  colleges,  clubs,  etc.,  are  such  that  in  any 
well  worded  proposition  the  affirmative  has  an  al- 
most hopeless  disadvantage  if  it  is  to  be  held  to  an 
actual  proof  of  its  case  in  the  time  allowed.  The 
judge  of  a  contest  debate  should  never  think  out  his 
decision  in  terms  of  cases,  or  of  weight  of  evidence, 
or  of  strength  of  argument,  except  as  these  things 
have  a  bearing  on  the  real  question,  "  Which  side  . 
has  the  better  debating  team?"  The  judge  should 
be  an  expert  in  debating,  and  should  be  instructed 
to  give  a  decision  in  terms  of  ability  of  the  con- 
testants as  debaters,  precisely  as  a  judge  in  all 
other  types  of  contests  gives  decisions  upon  the  abil- 
ity of  the  people  contesting,  as  painters,  sculptors, 


48  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

poets,  writers,  road  builders,  engineers,  etc.,  etc. 
The  proper  basis  for  a  decision  in  regard  to  the 
ability  of  a  debater  is  not  even  in  actual  life  whether 
or  not  he  wins  his  case.  The  better  lawyers  are 
sometimes  defeated,  the  better  debaters  are  some- 
times beaten  in  all  fields.  We  should  not  come  to 
our  decisions  in  contest  debates  on  the  basis  of 
whether  or  not  the  affirmative  has  established  its 
case,  established  each  of  the  vital  sub-propositions 
inherent  in  its  resolution,  but  upon  the  broad  ques- 
tion of  the  ability  of  the  contestants  as  debaters, 
considering  all  that  goes  to  make  good  debating. 

EXERCISES  *> 

1.  Give  the  potential  issues  for  each  of  five  proposi- 
tions used  in  Exercise  i,  Chapter  II.  and  indicate  which 
you  would  admit  if  you  were  in  charge  of  a  negative 
case. 

2.  Give  in  the  form  of  the  outline.,in  Exercise  i,  "  Stock 
issues,"  the  analysis  of  each  of  five- of  the  propositions 
used  in  Exercise  2,  Chapter  II. 

3.  Give  the  partition  for  a  negative  case  on  each  of 
the  propositions  used  in  Exercise  2,  and  indicate  which 
of  the  four  types  each  belongs  to. 


CHAPTER  IV 

INVESTIGATION 

A.  Investigation  necessary. 

B.  Sources. 

1.  Printed  material. 

2.  Interviews  and  private  letters. 

3.  Personal  observation. 

C.  Plan  of  study. 

D.  Notes. 

E.  Documentation. 

F.  Evidence  and  argument. 

G.  Think  your  evidence  through. 

A.  Investigation  necessary.  An  important  part 
of  the  preparation  for  debate  or  public  oral  discus- 
sion is  the  investigation  of  the  problem,  the  gath- 
ering of  the  material  out  of  which  the  finished  de- 
bate or  discussion  shall  be  evolved.  It  is  usually 
necessary  in  investigating  big  questions  not  only  to 
organize  the  results  of  our  own  personal  experience 
and  observation,  but  also  to  gather  material  from 
the  records  of  the  knowledge  and  experience  of 
others.  So  here  we  mean  by  "  investigation  "  all 
the  interviews,  all  the  personal  observation  and  ex- 
periment, and  all  the  reading,  done  for  the  pur- 
pose of  learning  about  the  field  dealt  with  in  the 
proposition,  and  of  gathering  material  for  con- 
structive and  rebuttal  argument.  It  is  the  purpose 
of  this  chapter  to  give  a  few  simple  directions  and 

49 


50  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

suggestions  to  be  followed  in  this  part  of  the 
preparation.  It  is  necessary  to  investigate  both 
sides,  or  at  least  to  read  and  study  both  sides  suffi- 
ciently to  understand  the  whole  bearing  of  the  con- 
troversy, so  that  the  suggestions  that  are  to  follow 
should  be  taken  as  applicable  to  reading  on  each 
side  of  a  proposition  for  debate  or  the  separate 
phases  of  a  topic  for  oral  discussion. 

B.  Sources.  The  sources  to  which  one  turns  in 
gathering  material  are  usually,  first,  books,  periodi- 
cals, pamphlets,  etc. ;  second,  private  conversations, 
interviews,  public  lectures,  or  private  letters;  and, 
third,  personal  observation  and  experiment. 

i.  Printed  material.  In  regard  to  the  first,  when 
we  are  looking  for  information  which  can  usually 
be  found  in  the  printed  form,  we  turn  to  a  library. 
In  a  well-organized  library  the  student  will  find  card 
catalogues  of  the  books  and  periodicals  available 
there,  and  will  also  find  such  publications  as  Poole's 
"  Index,"  the  "  Annual  Literary  Index,"  etc.,  etc., 
in  which  he  can  find  arranged  in  alphabetical  order 
the  periodical  articles  dealing  with  the  subject  in 
hand.  If  the  student  is  not  so  situated  that  a  per- 
sonal visit  to  the  library  is  possible,  he  should  then 
correspond  with  a  state  circulating  library,  a  uni- 
versity extension  division,  or  other  such  service,  in 
order  that  material  may  be  obtained.  If  the  stu- 
dent is  working  on  an  important  question  for  pub- 
lic discussion  which  has  been  much  written  upon  by 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  51 

competent  authorities,  he  should  somehow  or  other 
gain  access  to  the  books,  periodicals,  and  pamphlets 
which  have  dealt  with  that  subject.  If  after  a  seri- 
ous attempt  it  is  found  that  access  to  such  publica- 
tions is  impossible,  then  the  proposition  or  subject 
should  be  dropped.  Very  often  libraries,  exten- 
sion divisions,  or  other  institutions,  are  able  to  furn- 
ish complete  and  up-to-date  bibliographies  on  cer- 
tain subjects.  Such  bibliographies  may  save  a  great 
deal  of  time  that  would  otherwise  be  consumed  in 
search  for  references  in  various  indexes. 

2.  Interviews  and  private  letters.  In  regard  to 
the  second  type  of  source  —  conversations,  inter- 
views, lectures,  and  private  letters  —  two  warnings 
should  be  given :  First,  do  not  gather  such  material 
from  any  except  persons  who  know,  whose  opinions 
and  knowledge  have  genuine  significance.  Do  not 
look  for  famous  witnesses,  but  for  well  informed 
witnesses.  The  citing  of  a  very  distinguished  citizen 
in  regard  to  a  matter  concerning  which  he  knows 
little,  is  stupid  work.  In  the  second  place,  do  not 
presume  too  much  upon  the  time  and  patience  of 
busy  men  and  women  who  consent  to  give  you  in- 
terviews, or  to  answer  your  letters.  In  your  rela- 
tions with  such  people  be  brief,  be  clear.  Plan 
what  you  want  very  accurately  before  you  make  an 
attempt  to  get  it.  Be  courteous;  and  if  you  write 
them,  write  short  and  accurate  letters,  and  enclose 
postage. 


52  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

3.  Personal  observation.  As  far  as  your  own 
personal  experiments  and  observations  are  con- 
cerned, there  are  two  principal  warnings  to  be  given. 
First,  be  very  painstaking  and  accurate  in  your  ob- 
servations; second,  make  a  very  careful  record,  if 
possible  of  such  a  nature  that  its  accuracy  can  be 
checked  up  by  opponents  or  other  interested  peo- 
pie. 

C.  Plan  of  study.  Much  time  will  be  saved, 
and  clearness  and  orderliness  in  the  development 
of  the  case  will  be  gained,  if  a  definite  plan  of  study 
is  followed.  The  broad  underlying  principle  which 
should  guide  the  student  in  the  study  of  any  par- 
ticular proposition  or  case  should  be;  Go  from  the 
general  to  the  specific.  Start  your  reading  on  the 
broadest  possible  base.  Choose,  first,  to  read  fun- 
damental discussions  of  the  problem  or  of  the  field  in 
which  the  problem  lies,  such  as  usually  will  be  found 
in  books.  It  is  a  good  plan  to  draw  up  a  list  of  the 
books  which  you  purpose  actually  to  read,  and  read 
these  first  before  turning  to  other  sources  of  in- 
formation. After  you  have  read  the  books  which 
bear  on  the  subject,  particularly  those  which  deal 
with  general  principles  and  conditions,  then  move 
on  to  a  selection  of  pamphlets  or  periodicals  and 
read  these.  Here  you  will  get  probably  not  only 
further  understanding  of  broad  principles,  but  also 
points  of  contention  pro  and  con,  arguments  on 
each  side,  and  definite,  concrete  evidence  which  may 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  53 

be  used  in  your  presentation.  By  this  time  the 
plan  of  case  ought  to  be  well  developed,  so  that  you 
know  about  what  sort  of  material  you  must  have 
to  establish  your  contentions.  If  periodicals  do  not 
furnish  precisely  what  is  desired,  the  search  may  be 
continued  into  daily  newspapers,  private  interviews, 
and  personal  observation  experiment.  Study  car- 
ried on  along  these  lines  is  practically  sure  to  save 
time  and  to  give  a  clearness  and  orderliness  to  the 
development  of  understanding  and  opinion  which 
cannot  possibly  be  gained  by  cursory,  hit-or-miss 
reading  which  attempts  to  devour  all  material  in 
the  order  in  which  it  is  discovered. 

D.  Notes.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  for  any 
person  to  carry  in  mind  the  detailed  results  of  a 
great  deal  of  reading  on  an  important  subject. 
Some  system  of  taking  and  preserving  notes  of  the 
material  discovered  is  absolutely  necessary.  There 
are  two  possibilities.  One  is  the  use  of  a  notebook, 
and  the  other,  the  use  of  a  card  for  note  taking. 
Each  has  certain  advantages  and  disadvantages. 

I.  A  notebook  is  perhaps  easier  to  carry,  will 
preserve  all  the  material  without  much  danger  of 
certain  items  being  lost,  admits  of  the  insertions  of 
large  clippings,  letters,  etc.,  or  even  of  drawings 
and  photographs,  and,  finally,  preserves  all  the  ma- 
terial on  a  given  subject  in  a  given  volume,  which 
(if  a  substantial,  well  bound,  notebook  is  chosen  in 
the  first  place)  may  be  properly  labelled  and  put 


54  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

away  on  one's  shelves  as  a  permanent  volume  of 
accurate  information  on  a  given  subject.  For  some 
types  of  investigation  these  advantages  of  the  note- 
book would  perhaps  outweigh  its  disadvantages, 
which  are,  principally,  the  difficulty  of  sorting  and 
arranging  material,  of  choosing  certain  items  to 
•  take  with  you  and  leaving  the  remainder  in  your 
desk;  the  inability  to  add  material  at  given  points, 
bringing  into  conjunction  notes  on  a  single  sub-topic 
gathered  from  different  sources  at  different  times; 
in  short,  inelasticity  in  working  over  the  notes  is 
the  disadvantage  which  one  suffers  when  notes  are 
in  a  bound  notebook. 

2.  A  card  form.  On  the  whole,  probably  a  card 
form  for  taking  notes  is  most  serviceable.  The 
card  form  shown  here  is  recommended  as  being  par- 
ticularly useful.  Notes  taken  on  such  cards  as  this 
one  are  very  easily  handled.  They  can  be  shuffled 
and  sorted,  arranged  and  rearranged,  without  dan- 
ger of  permanent  confusion.  They  can  be  filed  in 
an  ordinary  card  filing  case,  can  be  removed  at  will, 
new  material  on  similar  cards  can  be  added  at  any 
point  at  any  time,  and  thus  the  whole  collection 
can  grow  indefinitely.  It  can  be  improved  by  hav- 
ing certain  parts  of  it  replaced  from  time  to  time  as 
fresher  and  better  material  is  discovered.  It  can 
be  a  continually  changing  and  improving  body  of 
material  \rithout  any  disarrangement  or  confusion. 
Certain  cards  may  be  abstracted  at  any  time  and 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION 


55 


taken  out  for  a  given  lecture,  talk,  or  debate,  and 
afterwards  put  back  in  their  proper  places  with- 
out any  disadvantage.  So  it  is  probably  well  to 
say  that  unless  there  are  very  definite  reasons  why 
the  notebook  should  be  used,  students  should  prac- 
tice using  a  card  form,  and  should  accustom  them- 
selves to  taking  notes  on  cards.  The  following 
form  is  recommended  in  4x6  inch  size.  If  oral 
material  is  used,  change  headings  to  "  speaker " 
and  "  where  given,'5  noting  place  and  date. 


Topic 


Writer 


Where  Found 


The  Expert  Judge 
of  Debate. 


Mr.  L.   R.   Sarett, 
Univ.  of  Illinois. 


Quarterly  Journal 
of  Speech  Edu- 
cation, Vol.  Ill, 
No.  2,  p.  135. 


E.  Documentation.  However  notes  are  taken, 
the  note  taker  should  never  forget  to  make  abso- 
lutely accurate  records  of  the  source  from  which 


56  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  material  is  drawn.  Accuracy  in  documenta- 
tion means  a  complete  filling  out  of  the  blank  at 
the  top  of  the  card  shown  here.  The  subject  dealt 
with,  the  writer  quoted  from,  and  the  precise  source 
where  such  writing  is  found,  should  be  given  on 
each  card.  Even  though  the  same  subject  from 
the  same  source  runs  over  from  card  to  card,  com- 
plete documentation  should  be  entered  on  every 
card  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  confusion  when 
the  cards  are  sorted  and  rearranged.  The  prin- 
ciple which  should  guide  in  documenting  notes 
should  be  this:  Make  every  reference  so  accurate 
that  another  person  finding  your  notes  could  locate 
the  precise  material  in  the  shortest  possible  time. 
In  other  words,  complete  data  as  to  the  author, 
giving  initials,  even  if  his  name  is  very  well 
known,  the  publication,  volume,  number,  and  page. 
Any  reference  which  stops  short  of  the  exact  page 
number  from  which  the  material  is  taken  is  a  faulty 
reference.  If  you  leave  out  page  numbers,  neither 
yourself  nor  other  people  can  quickly  find  the  mate- 
rial when  it  is  sought  for  at  some  later  time. 

F.  Evidence  and  argument.  It  was  said  above 
that  material  should  be  gathered  from  both  sides 
and  from  all  phases  of  a  proposition  or  subject 
for  discussion.  It  should  now  be  remarked  that 
on  each  side  we  should,  in  general,  look  for  ma- 
terial of  two  kinds:  First,  arguments;  and  sec- 
ond, evidence.  By  arguments  is  meant  contentions, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  57 

points,  statements  of  opinion,  reasons.  By  evi- 
dence is  meant  facts  which  may  be  used  to  sub- 
stantiate or  prove  the  points,  reasons,  contentions, 
etc.,  which  we  call  arguments.  In  other  words,  if 
you  are  reading  a  magazine  article  in  which  a  writer 
is  advocating  federal  ownership  of  coal  mines,  you 
should  look  for  two  things,  and  you  should  separate 
the  two  things  and  be  able  to  deal  with  them  in 
separate  groups.  First,  you  should  look  for  this 
writer's  beliefs,  his  opinions,  his  reasons  for  ad- 
vocating federal  ownership  of  coal  mines,  the  state- 
ments which  he  would  make  in  order  to  justify  and 
back  up  his  opinion  —  the  points,  in  other  words, 
which  he  might  list  in  favor  of  his  side.  In  the  sec- 
ond place,  you  should  look  for  the  facts,  the  records 
of  incidents,  the  statistics,  the  experiences  upon 
which  he  bases  his  arguments  which  he  uses  to  back 
up  his  contentions  and  to  illustrate  his  points. 
distinction  between  evidence  and  argument  will  be 
made  clearer  in  Chapter  V.  It  is  a  tremendously 
important  distinction,  and  should  be  cleared  up  ac- 
curately and  kept  in  mind  in  all  work  of  an  argu- 
mentative nature.  Particular  attention  should  be 
called  here  to  the  argument  from  authority  discussed 
in  the  next  chapter.  Do  not  allude  to  everyone 
from  whom  you  quote  as  an  authority.  Do  not 
consider  that  you  are  using  an  argument  from  au- 
thority when  you  present  ordinary  evidence,  or 
when  you  name  or  ident;fy  an  ordinary  witness. 


58  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

Properly  speaking,  an  argument  from  authority 
consists  in  using  as  evidence,  as  a  matter  of  fact 
upon  which  you  base  an  opinion,  the  statement 
that  a  certain  person  holds  a  certain  opinion.  A 
person  so  quoted  should  be  especially  qualified  so 
that  his  opinion  is  of  real  significance  in  regard  to 
the  point  to  substantiate  which  it  is  offered. 

G.  Think  your  evidence  through.  Digest  the  in- 
formation which  you  obtain.  Relate  it  to  what  you 
have  already  obtained.  Make  it  part  of  your  own 
information  and  thinking.  Do  not  gather  opin- 
ions and  satistics  in  a  mechanical  way,  and  present 
them  to  others  in  a  mechanical  way,  without  having 
taken  them  into  your  own  thinking  and  modified 
them  by  the  other  knowledge  which  you  have  in 
mind.  Think  through  your  evidence  as  you  gather 
it.  Add  it  piece  by  piece  to  an  accumulated  fund 
of  understood  knowledge,  so  that  your  position  in 
regard  to  the  subject  you  are  treating,  and  your 
whole  case  in  regard  to  that  subject,  shall  be  a 
harmonious,  unified  whole,  which  shall  represent 
not  simply  a  conglomeration  of  other  men's  ideas, 
but  an  organized,  thoughtful  development  of  your 
ideas,  of  your  information,  your  attitude  toward  the 
proposition  or  subject  dealt  with. 

EXERCISE 

I.  Hand  in  at  least  twelve  cards  of  notes  on  a  single 
subject  made  out  as  directed  in  this  chapter,  giving  ma- 
terial drawn  from  at  least  four  different  sources. 


CHAPTER  V 

EVIDENCE 

A.  Definitions. 

B.  Fact  and  opinion. 

C.  Parallel  column  analysis. 

D.  Kinds  of  evidence. 

1.  Direct  or  circumstantial. 

2.  Real  or  personal. 

3.  Original  or  hearsay. 

4.  Negative  evidence. 

5.  Expert  evidence. 

a.  Argument  from  authority. 

b.  Misuse  of  term  "  authority." 

E.  Tests   of   evidence. 

1.  Tests  of  the  quality  of  evidence. 

a.  Consistent  with  known  facts? 

b.  Consistent   with   human   experience? 

c.  Consistent  with  itself? 

d.  Can  it  pass  the  hearsay  test? 

(I)  Definite,  unambiguous  evidence? 
(II)  Through  satisfactory  channels? 

2.  Tests  of  the  source  of  evidence. 

a.  Ordinary  witnesses. 

(I)   Physically  qualified? 
(II)   Mentally  qualified? 

(III)  Morally  qualified? 

(IV)  Opportunity  to  learn  truth? 

b.  Expert  witnesses. 

(I)  Opinion   evidence   needed? 
(II)  Witness  qualified? 
(Ill)  Authority  recognized? 

A.  Definitions.     When  men  in  debate  or  discus- 
sion make  statements  that  are  not  at  once  accepted, 

59 


60  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

or  which  they  may  fear  will  not  be  accepted,  it  is 
common  to  present  evidence  to  prove  that  they  are 
right.  Certain  facts  are  presented  as  evidence  from 
which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  statements  made 
are  true.  By  evidence,  then,  is  meant  any  matter 
of  fact  which  may  be  used  in  generating  proof. 
Reasoning  or  inference  (or  argument  in  one  sense 
of  the  word)  means  a  process  of  thought  by  which 
we  evolve  or  substantiate  conclusions  not  self-evi- 
dent in  the  facts  with  which  we  deal. 

It  is  important  that  in  dealing  with  evidence  and 
argument  we  distinguish  between  the  evidence,  i.  e., 
the  matter  of  fact  from  which  we  reason,  and  the 
reasoning  in  which  we  indulge.  Reasoning  about 
facts  is  not  evidence.  The  term  "  proof  "  is  used  to 
cover  the  whole  process  of  using  evidence  and  argu- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  establishing  conclusions; 
so  proof  may  be  said  to  consist  of  evidence  and 
argument.  The  word  "  proof  "  is  sometimes  used 
to  mean  the  result  or  effect  of  argument,  instead  of 
simply  the  word  covering  the  whole  process.  Using 
proof  in  this  sense  we  might  say  that  evidence  is 
the  raw  material,  argument  or  reasoning  or  infer- 
ence is  the  process  or  method,  and  proof  is  the 
finished  product. 

B.  Fact  and  opinion.  When  we  say  that  evi- 
dence is  any  matter  of  fact,  which  may  be  used  in 
generating  proof,  we  are  not  limited  to  admitted 
matters  of  fact,  or  matters  of  fact  which  are  gen- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  61 

erally  known  to  be  true,  but  to  matters  of  fact  as 
distinguished  from  matters  of  opinion.  Thus  it 
is  a  matter  of  fact  that  mince  pie  is  used  in  New 
England  as  food.  It  is  a  matter  of  opinion  whether 
or  not  mince  pie  is  a  better  breakfast  dish  than 
buckwheat  cakes.  Whether  A  whipped  B  (in  a 
given  case)  is  a  matter  of  fact.  Whether  or  not  he 
ought  (under  the  circumstances)  to  have  whipped 
B  is  a  matter  of  opinion.  The  careful  distinction 
between  matters  of  fact  and  matters  of  opinion  may 
frequently  be  observed  in  court  rooms  when  wit- 
nesses are  held  to  a  bare  recital  of  facts,  what  they 
saw  or  heard  only,  and  strictly  prohibited  from 
using  a  word  that  shows  simply  opinion,  as  brutal, 
horrible,  coarse,  indecent,  courteous,  polite. 

C.  Parallel  column  analysis.  An  excellent  de-' 
vice  for  enforcing  proper  analysis  of  our  material 
is  to  take  a  full  size  sheet  of  paper,  and  divide  it 
into  three  parallel  columns.  Write  at  the  top  of 
the  first,  "  Argument  " ;  at  the  top  of  the  second, 
"  Evidence  " ;  at  the  top  of  the  third,  "  Sources." 
Then  put  in  the  first  column  the  points  which  you 
wish  to  urge  in  favor  of  your  proposition.  In  the 
second  column  the  evidence  upon  which  you  base 
these  arguments,  and  in  the  third  column  the  sources 
from  which  you  get  your  information,  the  names 
of  your  witnesses,  and  the  places  in  which  you  found 
out  that  the  witnesses  had  made  the  statements  you 
are  attributing  to  them.  Such  an  exercise  will  prob- 


62  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ably  bring  out  more  clearly  than  any  discussion 
could,  the  essential  difference  between  evidence  and 
argument  or  inference.  Of  course  we  must  re- 
member that  the  word  "  argument "  may  be  used 
in  a  number  of  different  meanings ;  it  may  refer  sim- 
ply to  an  insolated  inference,  or  mode  of  reasoning, 
to  a  whole  debate,  to  an  argumentative  essay,  or  to 
other  things. 

D.  Kinds  of  evidence.  There  is  so  much  con- 
fusion in  regard  to  classifications  of  evidence  that 
it  is  probably  well  to  explain  the  proper  mean- 
ings of  a  few  of  the  most  ordinary  terms  which 
may  be  applied  to  evidence.  In  this  classification 
there  is  no  attempt  to  invent  new  terms  or  to  give 
new,  unauthorized  definitions  to  old  terms.  The 
kinds  of  evidence,  and  the  meaning  of  the  various 
qualifying  terms  used,  are  essentially  the  same  in  all 
fields  of  thought.  The  meanings  of  the  terms  ex- 
plained here  are  the  same  in  law,  in  history,  in  nat- 
ural science,  and  in  all  fields  in  which  men  investi- 
gate and  argue  and  try  to  prove  propositions  by  the 
use  of  something  which  they  call  evidence.  It  is 
true  that  the  law  has  certain  rules  which  we  call 
rules  of  evidence,  which  do  not  apply  outside  of  law 
courts.  But  the  terms  which  are  here  defined  and 
explained  mean  the  same  things  in  all  fields,  and 
should  not  be  used  anywhere  in  any  meaning  other 
than  that  given  to  them  in  this  chapter.  A  refer- 
ence to  any  authoritative  discussion  of  evidence 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  63 

in  law,  logic,  rhetoric,  or  elsewhere,  will  demon- 
strate the  truth  of  these  remarks. 

i.  Direct  or  circumstantial.  Evidence  is  either 
direct  or  circumstantial  (indrect).  Direct  evidence 
is  testimony  which  goes  directly  to  the  question  at 
issue.  For  instance,  if  a  man  is  accused  of  setting 
fire  to  a  barn,  and  we  have  a  witness  who  swears 
that  he  saw  the  accused  set  fire  to  the  barn,  then 
we  have  direct  evidence.  If  a  man  is  accused  of 
making  a  certain  remark,  and  we  have  a  witness 
who  swears  that  he  heard  the  accused  make  the 
remark,  then  we  have  direct  evidence.  If  in  this 
first  case  we  have  a  witness  who  swears  that  he 
saw  the  accused  running  away  from  the  burning 
barn,  we  have  indirect  or  circumstantial  evidence 
that  he  is  guilty  of  firing  the  barn.  In  the  second 
case,  if  we  have  a  witness  who  testifies  that  he 
heard  some  one  make  the  remark  and  turning 
around  saw  the  accused  in  heated  conversation 
with  two  or  three  other  men,  or  that  he  heard  the 
accused  say  on  the  day  before,  something  from 
which  it  might  be  inferred  that  the  accused  had 
made  the  remark  in  question,  then  we  have  in- 
direct or  circumstantial  evidence  that  he  made  this 
remark.  These  terms  "  direct  "  and  "  indirect  " 
indicate  simply  the  relation  of  the  evidence  con- 
cerned to  the  proposition  being  tried  out.  It  is 
therefore  impossible  to  label  any  evidence  direct 
or  circumstantial  without  knowing  what  the  proposi- 


64  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

tion  is.  Circumstantial  evidence  or  indirect  evidence 
—  the  terms  mean  the  same  thing  —  is  simply  evi- 
dence of  some  circumstance  from  which  we  infer  the 
existence  of  the  fact  in  question,  or  from  which 
we  infer  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  main  proposi- 
tion. 

2.  Real  or  personal.  Evidence  is  real  or  per- 
sonal. Personal  evidence  is  any  evidence  which  is 
offered  by  the  means  of  communication  of  thought 
from  one  person  to  another.  Whenever  a  person 
testifies,  we  have  personal  evidence^  Whenever  a 
person  says  or  writes  that  a  thing  is  true,  or  writes 
a  book  in  which  he  states  that  a  thing  is  true,  we 
have  personal  evidence.  Real  evidence  is  evidence 
which  consists  in  the  presentation  of  some  matter 
directly  to  the  senses  of  the  people  we  are  to 
judge.  If  the  question  is  whether  a  certain  lot  of 
butter  is  spoiled,  and  some  man  examines  it  and 
goes  into  court  and  testifies  that  it  is  spoiled,  we 
have  personal  evidence.  If,  instead  of  this,  we  bring 
the  butter  into  court  and  offer  it  to  the  jury  that 
they  may  taste  it  or  smell  it,  we  are  offering  real 
^evidence.  When  you  put  on  your  coat  in  a  court- 
room, in  order  to  show  that  your  tailor  has  done 
such  a  poor  job  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  pay  for 
making  the  coat,  you  are  offering  real  evidence. 
If  you  told  the  jury  that  it  was  so  badly  made  that 
you  could  not  wear  it,  you  would  be  offering  per- 
sonal evidence.  Persons  may  offer  real  evidence  in 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  65 

regard  to  any  qualities  which  they  have  in  com- 
mon with  things.  When  a  person  is  exhibited  in 
a  courtroom  in  order  that  a  jury  may  decide  whether 
or  not  he  is  twenty-one  years  old,  he  is  offering 
real  evidence.  When  a  person  exhibits  a  wound 
to  the  jury  to  show  how  badly  he  is  hurt,  he  is 
offering  real  evidence. 

3.  Original  or  hearsay.  Evidence  is  either  orig- 
inal or  hearsay.  Original  evidence  means  simply 
first-hand  evidence.  Hearsay  means  second-hand 
evidence.  Hearsay  evidence  is  evidence  which  de- 
pends, in  part  at  least,  upon  some  other  person 
beside  the  one  offering  the  evidence.  If  A  testifies 
that  he  saw  B  shoot  Cs  cow,  we  have  original 
evidence.  If  A  testifies  that  M  told  him  that  B 
had  shot  C's  cow,  we  have  hearsay  evidence.  We 
need  not  here  be  concerned  with  the  legal  rule 
of  evidence  which  declares  in  general  that  hearsay 
evidence  is  not  admissible.  Please  notice  that  the 
legal  rule  does  not  declare  that  hearsay  evidence  is 
not  logical  or  relevant.  We  are  not  here  concerned 
either  with  this  rule  or  the  numerous  exceptions  to 
it  recognized  in  legal  procedure.  But  we  may  well 
take  a  warning  from  the  law  courts  and  examine 
with  special  care  evidence  that  is  ruled  out  in  law. 
In  general  argumentation  we  should  pay  close  at- 
tention to  the  hearsay  test,  which  is  mentioned  later 
in  this  chapter.  But  hearsay  evidence  which  can 
pass  the  twofold  test  for  hearsay  in  general  argu- 


66  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ment,  is  quite  as  useful  as  though  it  were  original 
evidence.  In  fact,  we  all  depend  upon  hearsay  evi- 
dence every  day  of  our  lives,  and  much  of  the  ac- 
tivity of  mankind  would  be  quite  impossible  if 
hearsay  evidence  were  not  accepted. 

4.  Negative  evidence.     The  term  "  negative  evi- 
dence "    has    been    a    common    one    in    rhetorical 
treatises  of  evidence   for  a  long  time.     Negative 
evidence  does  not  mean  evidence  on  the  negative 
side,  but  simply  a  significant  absence  of  evidence. 
We  use  negative  evidence  when  we  use  as  evidence 
the  fact  that  evidence  cannot  be  found,  j  For  in- 
stance, the  fact  that  a  given  student's  name  cannot 
be  found  in  a  posted  list  of  those  who  have  passed 
a  certain  examination  is  used  as  evidence  that  he 
has  not  passed.     This  is  negative  evidence.     The 
absence  of  campfires  along  a  certain  trail  is  used  as 
evidence  that  another  party  has  not  preceded  you 
along  that  route.     The  absence  of  any  mention  in 
the  daily  press  of  a  great  fire  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
in  June,   1900,  is  used  as  evidence  that  no  great 
fire  took  place  in  that  city  during  that  month. 

5.  Expert  evidence.     There  has  been  much  con- 
fusion in  the  past  in  regard  to  the  use  of  expert 
evidence  in  argumentation  and  debate  outside  of 
law  courts.     If  we  will  borrow  some  hints  from 
legal  procedure,  we  can  very  easily  clear  up  this 
situation.     The  law  in  general *  does  not  permit  an 

1  In   rare  instances   "  ordinary "   witnesses  are  allowed  to 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  67 

ordinary  witness  to  express  his  opinion.  He  is  al- 
lowed to  state  what  he  saw,  what  he  heard,  etc., 
without  characterizing  it  or  expressing  his  opinion 
concerning  whether  or  not  it  was  justifiable,  or 
honest,  or  dishonest.  But  the  law  in  certain  cases 
allows  experts  who  are  particularly  qualified  to 
understand  certain  circumstances  to  express  opin- 
ions for  the  guidance  of  the  jury;  and  so  we 
have  in  law  the  term  "  opinion  evidence  "  which 
means  the  evidence  of  some  particularly  qualified 
person  who  is  allowed  to  express  an  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  certain  matters  on  which  such  opinion  will 
be  helpful  to  those  who  have  to  make  a  given  de- 
cision. 

A.  Argument  from  authority.  The  proper  use 
of  expert  evidence  in  argumentation  outside  of  law 
courts  should  parallel  this  procedure.  The  term 
outside  of  law  courts  instead  of  being  called  "  opin- 
ion evidence  "  is  usually  designated  as  "  argument 
from  authority."  When  you  use  an  argument  from 
authority,  you  are  in  effect  using  "  opinion  evi- 
dence/' and  it  is  evidence,  strictly  speaking,  and 
not  argument.  When  in  a  debate  you  cite  the  opin- 
ion of  someone  else  on  a  matter,  you  are  offering 
as  a  fact  that  Mr.  "  X  "  thinks  so  and  so.  This 
is  worth  while  only  when  the  fact  that  Mr.  "  X  " 
thinks  so  and  so  will  be  accepted  by  the  audience  as 

testify  to  opinions,  and  sometimes  "expert  witnesses"  testify 
concerning  facts. 


68  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

a  significant  fact.  In  the  use  of  this  type  of  evi- 
dence, we  should  be  sure  that  we  are  dealing  with  a 
case  in  which  opinion  evidence  is  significant,  that 
is,  a  case  in  which  one  man's  opinion  is  not  as  good 
as  another's,  a  case  in  which  those  who  are  to  de- 
cide will  have  difficulty  in  understanding  and  in- 
terpreting certain  facts  unless  some  singularly  quali- 
fied person  is  allowed  to  give  them  his  opinion. 
So  when  we  are  dealing  with  questions  like  tariff, 
national  defense,  or  treatment  of  certain  diseases, 
we  may  very  well  call  in  experienced  men  in  these 
fields,  and  ask  them  to  give  us  the  benefit  of  their 
opinions.  But  if  we  are  dealing  with  such  questions 
as  to  whether  or  not  a  given  town  should  build  a 
new  high  school  or  should  vote  wet  or  dry,  and 
similar  questions  of  every  day  life,  we  have  little 
use  for  the  opinions  of  experts.  It  is  true  that 
there  may  be  certain  people  who  on  account  of  their 
activities  are  especially  well  qualified  to  give  in- 
formation in  regard  to  these  questions,  but  the  in- 
formation which  they  give  is  not  opinion  evidence. 
They  are  simply  ordinary  witnesses  who  meet  the 
tests  all  ordinary  witnesses  have  to  meet,  namely, 
an  opportunity  for  finding  out  the  facts  which  they 
presume  to  present. 

B.  Misuse  of  term  "authority"  It  should  be 
carefully  borne  in  mind  that  when  we  document  our 
statements,  when  we  tell  where  we  found  our  in- 
formation, and  identify  our  witnesses,  that  we  are 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  69 

not  using  argument  from  authority.  The  mistake 
has  been  made  in  some  text-books  to  treat  all  wit- 
nesses as  though  they  were  authorities.  This,  of 
course,  is  a  quite  unjustifiable  use  of  the  term  "  au- 
thority." A  farmer  who  testifies  concerning  an 
accident  on  the  highway  is  not  an  authority,  and 
you  are  not  using  argument  from  authority  when 
you  identify  your  witness,  and  tell  where  you  found 
out  that  he  gave  this  testimony.  If  a  chief  justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  testifies 
that  the  state  of  New  York  passed  a  certain  statute 
in  1899,  and  y°u  bring  out  this  remark  of  his  in 
the  debate,  you  are  not  using  an  argument  from  au- 
thority. He  is  an  "  ordinary  "  witness  testifying  to 
an  "  ordinary  "  fact,  and  he  is  to  be  classed  as  an 
ordinary  witness.  You  gain  nothing  whatever  from 
proving  this  fact  through  the  mouth  of  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  United  States  that  you  would  not 
gain  by  proving  it  from  any  other  honest  man  who 
had  an  opportunity  to  find  out  that  what  he  was 
telling  was  true.  But  if  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  testifies  that 
he  does  not  believe  that  a  certain  act  passed  by 
Congress  would  be  constitutional,  then  you  are  using 
an  argument  from  authority,  you  are  giving  the 
opinion  of  an  expert,  a  man  who  is  particularly 
qualified  to  express  an  opinion  on  a  matter  on 
which  a  layman's  opinion  would  be  of  little  im- 
portance. The  test  given  further  on  for  expert  wit- 


70  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

nesses  should  be  very  carefully  applied  whenever  in 
general  argument  we  use  the  argument  from  au- 
thority. 

E.  Tests  of  evidence.  Whether  we  are  using 
evidence  in  a  formal  debate  in  endeavoring  to  up- 
hold or  attack  an  unamendable  proposition,  or  us- 
ing it  in  a  less  formal  discussion  of  a  topic,  the 
tests  of  evidence  are  the  same.  In  all  discussions 
that  have  any  argumentative  end  whatever,  it  is 
usually  necessary  to  back  up  our  contentions  with 
evidence.  In  deciding  what  evidence  we  ourselves 
should  use  or  in  determining  how  best  to  attack  the 
evidence  of  those  who  are  contending  against  us, 
we  need  to  know  the  common  tests  of  evidence. 
Such  tests  are  best  understood  if  considered  in  two 
groups. 

i.  Tests  of  the  quality  of  evidence  itself.  In 
this  group  we  test,  not  the  source  from  which  the 
evidence  comes,  but  the  quality  of  the  evidence  as 
distinct  from  its  source.  The  following  well-known 
tests  should  always  be  applied. 

a.  Is  the  evidence  consistent  with  known  facts? 
Whenever  we  introduce  evidence  into  a  discussion 
of  a  question,  and  some  facts  are  already  known  and 
admitted  on  all  sides,  we  ought  to  test  our  evidence 
by  its  consistency  with  such  known  facts.  If  the 
evidence  is  inconsistent  with  known  facts,  it  is 
practically  worthless,  unless  it  is  so  strong  as  to 
cancel  or  throw  out  facts  that  had  been  heretofore 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  71 

considered  to  be  true.  We  cannot  maintain  in  our 
discussion  at  the  same  time  seriously  inconsistent 
facts.  The  new  evidence  presented  must  harmon- 
ize with  the  known  and  admitted  evidence  up  to 
date,  or  it  must  be  so  strong  that  it  will  overthrow 
the  earlier  admitted  facts  and  the  latter  will  drop 
out  of  the  case  and  receive  no  further  considera- 
tion. 

b.  Is  the  evidence  consistent  with  ordinary  human 
experience?  We  talk  to  audiences,  juries,  boards 
of  judges  in  terms  of  their  known  experience  if 
we  talk  to  them  effectively.  People  in  an  audience 
will  usually  not  understand,  to  say  nothing  of  be- 
lieve in,  evidence  which  is  inconsistent  with  human 
experience  as  they  know  it.  Evidence  which  to 
be  understood  or  accepted  requires  a  knowledge 
of  certain  phases  of  human  experience  which  are 
unknown  to  a  given  audience,  will  not  be  accepted 
by  that  audience  unless  the  way  for  such  accept- 
ance is  carefully  prepared.  Men  will  be  very  slow 
to  believe  anything  which  seems  to  them  contrary 
to  human  experience  as  they  know  it.  Therefore, 
whenever  we  have  evidence  that  we  believe  and  wish 
others  to  believe,  which  is  so  contrary,  we  should 
recognize  this  fact  and  prepare  the  audience  for 
the  acceptance  of  this  evidence  with  the  utmost 
care.  Of  course  unless  absolutely  necessary,  we 
should  not  use  evidence  which  is  contrary  to  human 
experience  as  understood  by  our  audience.  But  in 


72  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

all  cases  we  should  remember  that  any  evidence 
that  is  contrary  to  the  experience  of  the  listener 
will  practically  be  disregarded,  and  it  is  waste  of 
time  to  present  such  evidence  unless  we  first  pre- 
pare for  its  acceptance. 

c.  Is  the  evidence  consistent  with  itself?  This 
is  so  self-evident  that  it  needs  little  more  than  bare 
mentioning  to  serve  as  a  reminder  to  experienced 
debaters.  Be  sure  that  the  evidence  that  is  pre- 
sented will  "  hang  together."  If  an  opponent  can 
point  out  that  your  evidence  fights  with  itself,  you 
will  have  much  difficulty  in  explaining  such  a  sit- 
uation without  losing  tremendously  with  your  hear- 
ers. You  may  successfully  contend  against  what 
has  been  previously  accepted  as  a  known  fact,  you 
may  demonstrate  to  the  audience  that  what  at  first 
may  seem  inconsistent  with  human  experience,  is 
not  really  so.  You  may  do  both  of  these  things 
and  increase  your  prestige  with  your  audience  by 
so  doing.  However,  if  you  are  called  upon  to  ex- 
plain an  inconsistency  between  one  part  of  your 
own  evidence  and  another  part  of  your  own  evi- 
dence you  are  sure  to  lose  with  your  audience.  All 
that  you  present  to  your  audience  should  be  tested 
to  see  that  it  is  harmonious  and  to  see  that  the 
evidence  is  consistent  with  itself. 

d.  Can  it  pass  the  hearsay  test?  Hearsay  evi- 
dence has  been  already  defined  and  reference  has 
been  made  to  the  fact  that  in  legal  procedure  we 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  73 

have  a  general  rule,  excluding  all  hearsay  evidence 
and  then  have  a  number  of  well  defined  exceptions 
to  that  rule.  In  the  law  courts  all  hearsay  evi- 
dence is  inadmissible  unless  it  comes  under  one  of 
the  recognized  exceptions.  It  is  not  desirable  here 
to  go  into  the  discussions  of  the  reasons  for  this 
situation  in  law.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  here,  as 
throughout  the  entire  system  of  the  law  of  evi- 
dence, we  are  dealing  with  rules  of  legal  admissibil- 
ity,  which  are  not  designed  to  test  the  relevancy  or 
logical  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  considered.  In 
general  argumentation  outside  of  law  courts,  we 
have  no  rules  of  admissibility  other  than  principles 
of  logic  and  common  sense;  so  that  we  cannot  ex- 
clude by  rule  any  hearsay  evidence  when  our  discus- 
sions are  not  carried  on  in  court.  But  it  has  been 
well  said  that  what  the  courts  exclude  we  should 
scrutinize  with  great  care,  and  this  is  particularly 
applicable  to  hearsay  evidence.  Hearsay  evidence 
is  second-hand  evidence.  It  is  matter  which  has 
been  handed  around  from  mind  to  mind,  has  passed 
through  processes  of  impression  and  expression, 
each  of  which  offers  possibilities  for  modifications 
and  inaccuracies.  In  general  argument  and  de- 
bate, therefore,  we  should  test  all  hearsay  evidence 
in  order  to  determine  as  accurately  as  possible  its 
dependability. 

The  hearsay  test  divides  itself  into  two  parts. 
First  we  must  ask,  is  the  evidence  itself  of  such  a 


74  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

nature  that  it  is  probable  that  it  can  be  handed  about 
from  person  to  person  without  undergoing  consid- 
erable change?  For  instance,  if  the  evidence  is 
distinct,  definite,  unambiguous  statement  of  fact, 
such  as  that  John  Jones  died  Monday  of  pneu- 
monia, we  may  put  greater  confidence  in  it  than  if 
it  is  a  vague  indefinite  rumor  and  expressed  in 
wbrds  which  may  mean  one  thing  to  one  person 
and  something  else  to  another.  Such,  for  instance, 
as  a  report  concerning  financial  condition,  the 
morality  of,  the  manners  of,  some  individual  or 
family.  In  other  words,  definite,  unambiguous 
statements  which  are  likely  to  pass  from  person 
to  person  without  undergoing  change  are  accepted 
as  hearsay  evidence,  and  statements  of  such  na- 
ture that  they  are  quite  likely  to  undergo  serious 
change  as  they  pass  from  person  to  person  are 
wholly  unacceptable  as  hearsay  evidence. 

The  second  part  of  the  hearsay  test  requires  that 
the  hearsay  evidence  in  order  to  be  good  evidence 
must  come  through  satisfactory  channels.  The 
hearsay  channel  is  satisfactory  when  it  is  composed 
of  a  reasonably  limited  number  of  accurate, 
dependable  minds.  When  a  careful,  accurate, 
thoughtful  citizen  reports  something  which  has  been 
told  by  another  man  to  a  third  of  the  same  general 
character,  we  must  not  throw  this  statement  out 
'because  it  is  hearsay.  While  if  the  report  came  to 
us  through  careless,  thoughtless,  illiterate,  untrained 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  75 

minds,  we  would  probably  wish  to  verify  it  before 
being  guided  by  it.  Of  course  every  day  of  our 
lives  we  act  upon  hearsay  evidence  regarding  defi- 
nite matters  of  fact  which  are  reported  to  us 
through  acceptable  channels. 

2.  Tests  of  the  source  of  evidence.  The  second 
general  group  of  the  tests  of  evidence  deals  with 
the  testing  of  the  source  of  evidence  rather  than 
testing  the  quality  of  the  evidence  itself.  Evidence 
is  derived  from  persons,  documents,  and  things. 
Evidence  derived  from  things,  real  evidence,  does 
not  need  to  be  tested  for  source,  because  the  judge 
has  the  original  sources  before  him.  Documents 
such  as  contracts,  wills,  notes,  mortgages,  etc.,  offer 
documentary  evidence  of  the  statements  contained  in 
them  and  if  tested  at  all  in  regard  to  source,  the 
test  is  one  looking  directly  to  their  authenticity 
which  is  not  worth  our  while  to  consider  further 
here.  The  great  body  of  evidence  with  which  the 
people  for  whom  this  discussion  is  prepared,  will  be 
concerned  is  the  evidence  which  has  some  person  as 
its  source.  A  person  used  as  a  source  of  evidence, 
whether  on  a  formal  witness  stand  in  court,  or 
quoted  as  the  author  of  certain  statements  taken 
from  a  book,  magazine,  or  lecture,  is  a  "  witness." 

A  book  or  magazine  article  which  a  given  man  has 
written  is  simply  his  personal  testimony  and  should 
be  put  to  precisely  the  same  tests  of  evidence  that 
we  would  apply  to  his  oral  testimony.  A  book  or 


76  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

a  letter  or  manuscript  does  not  present  documen- 
tary evidence  of  the  facts  contained  in  it.  It  pre- 
sents only  the  personal  evidence  of  the  author,  but 
such  a  book  or  manuscript  or  letter  offers  documen- 
tary evidence  that  the  author  wrote  the  statements 
which  it  contains.  Witnesses,  or  personal  sources 
of  evidence,  with  which  we  are  principally  con- 
cerned here,  are  divided  into  two  classes,  ordinary 
and  expert. 

a.  Ordinary  witnesses.  An  ordinary  witness  is 
one  who  does  not  speak  as  expert  authority  on  some 
subject  concerning  which  the  ordinary  layman  is 
not  supposed  to  have  a  significant  opinion.  In 
the  court  room,  the  ordinary  witness  is  usually  per- 
mitted to  testify  only  to  facts.  He  is  not  allowed 
as  a  usual  thing  to  express  an  opinion  or  to  char- 
acterize in  any  way  the  words  or  actions  of  people 
concerning  whom  he  is  testifying.  He  is  required 
to  tell  literally  what  he  saw  and  what  he  heard. 
There  are  occasionally  situations  in  which  the  ordi- 
nary layman  witness  is  allowed  to  express  opinion, 
but  these  are  definite  exceptions  to  common  pro- 
cedure. The  regular  tests  of  ordinary  witness  are 
four. 

(I)  Is  the  witness  physically  qualified?  This  is 
a  very  simple  test  and  may  probably  not  concern 
most  of  the  users  in  this  discussion.  Of  course 
it  is  obvious  that  the  testimony  of  a  color-blind 
witness  as  to  the  color  of  lights  shown  in  a  rail- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  77 

road  yard,  is  of  no  importance.  The  testimony  of 
a  deaf  man  concerning  the  ringing  of  bells  and 
blowing  of  whistles,  is  of  little  importance.  In 
every  possible  instance  if  it  can  be  shown  that  a 
witness  is  physically  unable  to  ascertain  the  facts 
concerning  which  he  is  giving  testimony,  his  testi- 
mony will  usually  be  completely  disregarded. 

(II)  Is  the  witness  mentally  qualified?    A  man 
who  cannot  understand  what  was  going  on  in  a 
given  place  would  not  be  a  satisfactory  witness  con- 
cerning such  events.     A  man  who  could  not  un- 
derstand French  is  of  no  use  as  a  witness  concern- 
ing details  of  a  controversy  between  two  men  who 
were    talking    French.     A    weak-minded    person 
would  be  an  untrustworthy  witness  for  reporting 
things  which  happened  quickly  and  with  consider- 
able confusion.     So  if  in  any  way  we  can  show 
that  a  given  witness  is  mentally  incapable  of  get- 
ting and  reporting  accurate  impressions,  his  evi- 
dence will  be  given  little  weight. 

(III)  Is   the   witness   morally   qualified?    This 
means  practically  the  applications  of  two  tests. 

First,  is  the  witness  generally  morally  untrust- 
worthy? Does  his  report  concerning  any  matter 
have  to  be  taken  with  considerable  caution?  And, 
second,  is  he  disqualified  in  this  particular  case 
though  not  on  any  general  grounds?  In  other 
words,  is  his  interest  in  the  outcome  of  this  case 
so  great  that  it  might  interfere  with  his  moral  judg- 


78  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ment?  Obviously  the  testimony  of  a  man  who  has 
no  tremendous  stake  in  a  given  controversy  is  more 
dependable  on  this  score  than  the  testimony  of  a 
person  who  has  a  great  deal  at  stake.  By  this 
I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  to  say  that  we 
should  not  trust  prejudiced  witnesses.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  practically  all  witnesses  on  practically 
all  cases  are  prejudiced  to  a  greater  or  less  de- 
gree. It  is  difficult  to  find  an  important  case  com- 
ing up  for  discussion,  towards  which  any  well  in- 
formed individual  will  have  no  personal  attitude  or 
prejudice.  This  does  not  mean  he  will  have  a  dis- 
qualifying prejudice,  he  may  be  quite  open  minded 
and  be  able  to  investigate  impartially  and  accur- 
ately. We  should  test  our  witnesses  on  this  point 
with  this  consideration  in  mind,  and  should  not 
look  for  a  complete  absence  of  prejudices  which 
can  usually  be  found  only  as  an  accompaniment  to 
complete  absence  of  information.  The  wholly  un- 
prejudiced people  in  regard  to  any  case  are  usually 
only  the  totally  ignorant. 

(IV)  Did  the  witness  have  an  opportunity  to 
learn  the  truth?  The  most  important  test  of  an 
ordinary  witness  is  perhaps  the  test  of  his  oppor- 
tunity to  find  out  the  truth  which  he  presumed  to 
report.  "  Did  this  witness  have  an  opportunity 
to  learn  what  he  here  testifies  to?  "  is  a  very  vital 
test  indeed.  The  specific  methods  in  which  this 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  79 

test  will  be  applied  under  different  circumstances 
need  not  be  gone  into  here.  It  is  enough  to  say 
that  we  should  never  accept  the  testimony  of  any 
person  in  regard  to  anything  until  we  are  satisfied 
that  such  a  person  has  had  an  opportunity  to  find 
out  the  truth  concerning  the  matter  about  which 
the  testimony  is  given. 

b.  Expert  witnesses.  An  expert  witness  has  al- 
ready been  discussed  to  a  certain  extent  under  the 
title  of  opinion  evidence  in  the  first  part  of  this 
chapter.  In  the  court  room  the  expert  witness  is 
a  witness  who  is  allowed  to  give  opinion  evidence. 
It  is  true  that  the  expert  witness  sometimes  testi- 
fies to  fact  as  well  as  to  opinion,  but  the  real  con- 
sideration which  sets  him  off  from  the  ordinary 
witness  is  that  he  is  privileged  to  state  opinions 
while  the  ordinary  witness  is  not.  The  expert  wit- 
ness is  allowed  to  give  opinion  evidence  concern- 
ing matters  in  which  the  jury  need  information  or 
interpretation  from  some  specially  trained  observer, 
in  order  to  help  them  to  understand  the  matter  un- 
der consideration. 

In  general  argumentation  we  should  follow  very 
closely  the  procedure  of  the  court  in  regard  to  this 
type  of  witness.  Expert  testimony  and  opinion  evi- 
dence in  law  is  paralleled  outside  the  courtroom 
by  what  is  called  "  argument  from  authority."  The 
expert  is  cited  as  the  authority  whose  opinion  is 


8o  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

given  concerning  the  matter  being  discussed.  Un- 
der such  circumstances  we  should  apply  three  tests 
very  rigidly. 

(I)  Is  the  opinion  of  an  expert  or  authority 
needed?  Is  it  worth  while?  Are  we  dealing  with 
a  question  on  which  the  ordinary  layman  needs 
to  be  guided  expertly  in  order  to  reach  an  intelli- 
gent decision?  In  other  words,  have  we  a  case 
of  such  a  technical  nature  that  the  opinions  of 
specialists  ought  to  be  given  great  weight?  We 
obviously  have  such  cases  when  we  are  dealing  with 
intricate  questions  of  disease,  education,  sanitation, 
or  problems  of  law,  finance,  or  engineering.  We 
have  no  such  cases  when  we  are  dealing  with  liquor 
regulation,  woman  suffrage,  advisability  of  build- 
ing a  new  high  school,  and  other  cases  of  this 
sort.  Under  these  questions  it  is  true  that  minor 
questions  may  rise  on  which  we  may  ask  informa- 
tion from  an  expert.  It  is  true  that  there  may 
be  people  who  are  especially  qualified  to  testify  con- 
cerning facts,  because  they  have  had  an  unusual 
opportunity  to  learn  the  facts.  But  such  testimony 
is  not  an  argument  from  authority  and  does  not 
require  any  testing  not  applied  to  the  testing  of  an 
ordinary  witness  mentioned  above.  The  argument 
from  authority  is  essentially  saying,  "  We  ought 
to  do  this  because  Dr.  So-and-so  is  of  the  opinion 
that  it  should  be  done."  When  we  say,  "  We  ought 
to  do  this  because  Dr.  So-and-so  says  that  these 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  81 

facts  are  true,"  we  are  not  using  argument  from 
authority.  We  are  simply  using  ordinary  testi- 
mony as  to  facts  discovered  by  our  witness.  In 
general  argumentation  we  should  not  use  argument 
from  authority  on  questions  concerning  which  men 
wish  to  make  up  their  own  independent  opinions 
on  the  basis  of  facts  presented  to  them. 

(II)  Is    the    authority    qualified?     The    second 
test  looks  to  the  qualification  of  the  authority  used. 
Here  we  must  avoid  falling  into  the  fallacy  of  in- 
ferring that  a  man  is  an  authority  in  a  given  case 
because  he  is  a  distinguished  man,  or  because  he  is 
an  authority  on  something  else.     Because  a  man  is 
a  distinguished  scientist  does  not  make  him  an  au- 
thority on  a  question  in  ethics,  literature,  philoso- 
phy, or  other  fields.     Great  economists  should  be 
cited  as  authorities  on  nothing  but  economic  ques- 
tions.    Be  sure  your  authority  is  qualified  in  re- 
gard to  the  specific  problem  on  which  you  are  cit- 
ing his  opinion  as  a  reason  why  other  men  should 
believe  or  act  in  a  certain  way. 

(III)  Is  this  authority  recognised  by  this  audi- 
ence or  tribunal  as  a  duly  qualified  expert?     This 
is  a  most  important  test.     Regardless  of  your  opin- 
ion of  his  qualifications,  he  is  satisfactory  as  au- 
thority only  if  he  is  accepted  as  such  by  the  people 
whom  you  are  addressing.     The   audience   is   al- 
ways the  final  judge  of  the  qualification  of  the 
authority.     If  for  any  reason  your  hearers  will  re- 


82  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

fuse  to  accept  a  given  authority,  you  will  be  better 
off  if  you  do  not  present  him  to  them.  Whether 
or  not  he  is  qualified  to  speak  on  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion is  quite  beside  the  point  unless  you  are  talking 
to  people  who  will  accept  him  as  one  qualified. 

One  of  the  principal  weaknesses  of  most  public 
contest  debate  and  discussion  is  the  very  frequent 
use  of  authorities  who  do  not  meet  these  tests. 
In  school  debates  there  is  too  much  use  of  "  au- 
thorities "  on  questions  concerning  which  the  opin- 
ions of  men  cited  are  of  no  more  significance  than 
the  opinions  of  the  debaters  or  the  people  in  the 
audience.  The  citing  of  alleged  authorities  who 
on  examination  turn  out  to  be  simply  prominent 
men  and  not  authorities  in  the  field  in  which  the 
argument  lies,  is  the  most  frequent  blunder  com- 
mitted under  this  head.  Very  often,  also,  authori- 
ties are  introduced  without  taking  the  slightest  care 
to  prepare  the  way  for  them,  so  that  the  audience 
will  accept  them  as  satisfactory  experts.  If  your 
authority  is  not  well  known,  it  will  usually  be  pos- 
sible for  you  to  explain  a  few  things  about  him,  so 
that  the  audience  will  accept  him  as  a  qualified  ex- 
pert. It  is  only  when  these  three  tests  are  care- 
fully applied  that  the  use  of  authorities  in  public  dis- 
cussion is  significant  and  worth  while.  When  they 
are  not  applied,  the  use  of  such  authorities  is  at 
best  a  tiresome,  weak,  and  uninteresting  method  of 
argument,  and  at  worst  is  a  serious  affront  to  the 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  83 

people  addressed.  You  are  in  effect  asking  them 
to  take  a  certain  position  on  your  case  because 
some  other  person  has  taken  that  position,  when  the 
opinion  of  this  other  person  is  of  no  more  impor- 
tance than  the  opinion  of  anybody  else. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Hand  in  a  half  column  editorial  clipped  from  the] 
daily  press,  accompanied  by  a  parallel  column  analysis 
showing  all  of  the  material  in  the  editorial  arranged  in 
columns  of  argument,  evidence,  and  sources  of  informa- 
tion. 

2.  Hand  in  three  short  clippings  containing  ordinary  j 
evidence,   and   three   containing   expert   evidence,    from 
current  newspapers,  magazines,  etc. 

3.  Give  (a)  a  single  item  of  evidence  that  is  personal, 
circumstantial,  and  original;   (b)   one  which  is  negative, 
real,  circumstantial;    (c)    one  which   is  direct,  hearsay, 
personal;   (d)  one  which  is  hearsay,  circumstantial,  ex- 
pert. 


CHAPTER  VI 

REASONING 

A.  Reasoning  and  evidence. 

B.  Methods  of  attack  necessary. 

C.  Classifications  of  reasoning  or  forms  of  argument. 

1.  Antecedent  probability. 

a.  Methods  of  attack. 

(I)  Connection   complete? 
(II)  Cause  sufficient? 
»  (III)  Cut  off  by  some  other  cause? 

(IV)   Substitute  argument? 

2.  Sign. 

a.  Effect  to  cause. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack. 

(A)  Some  other  cause? 

(B)  Cause  capable? 

(C)  Connection  complete? 

b.  Effect  to  effect. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack. 

c.  Association. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack. 

3.  Example. 

a.  Generalization. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack. 

(A)  Fair  specimens? 

(B)  Enough  specimens? 

b.  Analogy. 

(I)  Figurative. 
(II)  Literal. 
(Ill)   Methods  of  attack. 

A.  Reasoning  and  evidence.  Gathering  together 
evidence,  or  matters  of  fact,  or  opinion,  with 
which  to  substantiate  our  proposition  or  back  up 

84 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  85 

our  position  in  public  discussion  is  but  a  part  of 
the  work.  Not  everyone  who  can  gather  evidence 
is  capable  of  making  the  proper  use  of  evidence,  or 
drawing  legitimate  inferences  from  evidence.  We 
are  now  turning  our  attention  to  a  few  of  the  most 
practical  observations  which  can  be  made  on  the 
subject  of  reasoning  about  the  evidence  which  we 
may  gather  for  any  particular  proposition.  Enough 
has  probably  already  been  said  in  this  discussion 
so  that  we  need  not  pause  here  to  dwell  longer  on 
\the  difference  between  evidence  on  the  one  hand, 
./and  reasoning  or  argument  on  the  other.  It  may 
be  well,  however,  to  suggest  here  again  the  advan- 
tage that  can  be  gained  from  exercises  in  parallel 
column  organization  of  a  complete  case,  or  a  sec- 
tion of  a  case,  arranging  the  argument  (or  infer- 
ence, or  contention)  in  one  column,  the  evidence  (or 
matters  of  fact  upon  which  the  reasoning  rests)  in 
the  second  column,  and  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
(or  sources  of  the  evidence)  in  the  third  column. 
Until  a  person  is  thoroughly  acquainted  with  these^ 
three  elements  of  a  case  and  is  quite  at  home  in  his 
handling  of  each  of  these  elements,  he  is  not  well 
prepared  for  public  discussion  or  debate  on  his 
chosen  subject. 

B.  Methods  of  attack  necessary.  It  is  necessary 
for  purposes  of  debate  and  public  discussion  not 
only  that  we  shall  understand  the  names  of  differ- 
ent types  of  argument,  but  that  we  shall  be  able 


86  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

to  attack,  to  refute  and  expose,  weak  arguments 
and  unsound  argument  which  we  may  be  called 
upon  to  contend  against.  It  is  well  to  understand 
the  nature  of  the  arguments  which  we  wish  to  re- 
fute and  the  definite  methods  by  which  the  weak- 
nesses of  the  arguments  may  be  made  plain  to 
others.  For  our  own  purposes,  perhaps  it  would 
be  sufficient  if  we  could  discern  a  weakness  in  a 
weak  argument  when  we  meet  it,  but  if  we  are 
concerned  with  presenting  our  case  on  the  platform 
and  keeping  other  people  from  being  led  astray  by 
improper  arguments,  it  will  not  be  enough  to  feel 
certain  that  the  argument  is  unsound,  but  it  will 
be  necessary  for  us  to  be  able  to  make  others  see 
that  it  is  unsound.  If  you  will  imagine  a  speaker 
standing  before  an  audience  in  a  public  discussion 
or  debate,  and  telling  his  audience  that  he  knows 
that  the  arguments  of  his  opponent  are  unsound, 
but  that  he  cannot  explain  what  is  the  matter  with 
them,  you  can  at  once  realize  the  necessity  of  being 
able  to  pick  a  weak  argument  to  pieces,  and  to  show 
an  audience  exactly  why  it  is  an  unsatisfactory  basis 
for  opinion.  In  this  chapter,  therefore,  we  shall 
present  under  each  type  of  argument  the  regular 
methods  of  attack  appropriate  to  that  type. 

C.  Classifications  of  reasoning  or  for-ns  of  ar- 
gument. The  possible  classifications  of  reasoning, 
or  inference,  or  forms  of  argument,  are  many.  It 
seems,  however,  best  worth  while  in  this  particular 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  87 

discussion  to  present  only  the  classification  com- 
mon in  rhetoric,  and  to  omit  a  discussion  of  rea- 
soning according  to  the  classifications  and  termin- 
ology of  logic.  According  to  the  classification 
which  seems  to  us  most  useful  for  our  present  pur- 
poses, forms  of  argument  or  reasoning  are  classi- 
fied in  three  general  divisions  —  antecedent  prob- 
ability, sign,  and  example. 

i.  Antecedent  probability.  The  name  of  the 
first,  antecedent  probability,  is  a  very  old  label  which 
may  sound  rather  formidable  to  those  unfamiliar 
with  it,  but  which  is  used  because  it  is  a  very  spe- 
cific label  indeed.  In  this  form  of  reasoning  we 
start  with  a  known  fact,  from  which  we  infer  that 
something  else  has  happened,  or  will  happen.  We 
treat  this  first,  known  fact  as  the  cause,  and  argue 
from  it  an  unknown  or  disputed  effect.  We  argue 
that  that  which  we  have  before  us,  the  known  fact, 
is  an  antecedent  from  which  the  disputed  fact  will 
probably  follow,  or  has  already,  folloived.  The 
existence  of  this  known  fact  makes  it  antecedently 
probable  that  the  disputed  fact  does  exist  or  will 
exist.  It  is  an  argument  which  always  travels  for- 
ward along  the  line  of  cause  to  effect;  as  when 
we  argue  that  a  severe  storm  will  result  from  the 
clouds  which  we  see  in  the  sky,  taking  the  clouds 
as  a  cause  of  the  coming  storm;  or  when  we 
argue  from  the  coldness  of  the  night  that  the  vege- 
tables will  freeze;  or  from  the  fact  that  a  child  has 


88  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

been  exposed  to  measles,  that  it  will  soon  have  the 
disease;  or  from  the  fact  that  the  school  house  has 
been  badly  damaged  by  fire  that  we  will  have  a 
new  school  building. 

a.  Methods  of  attack.  There  are  four  well-recog- 
nized modes  of  attacking  the  argument  from  ante- 
cedent probability. 

(I)  The  first  question  to  ask  in  regard  to  such 
an  argument  is,  "Is  the  connection  of  cause  to 
effect  complete?"  Is  there  a  break  or  a  missing 
link  in  the  chain  of  causal  connection?  Unless  it 
is  true  that  each  necessary  step  is  present  between 
the  infection  of  a  spring  with  typhoid  fever  germs 
and  the  consumption  of  water  from  that  spring  by 
the  person  under  discussion,  one  can  not  make  much 
of  an  antecedent  probability  argument.  For  in- 
stance, if  you  know  that  the  well  of  a  certain  house 
was  infected  on  the  first  of  July,  can  you  argue 
that  the  people  living  in  the  house  during  the  month 
of  July  will  have  the  typhoid  fever?  All  the  neces- 
sary steps  in  the  chain,  such  as  access  to  the  well, 
the  use  of  the  water,  etc.,  will  have  to  be  present 
if  a  cause  to  effect  argument  is  to  pass  muster  in 
this  instance.  And  so  in  every  case  of  an  argu- 
ment from  antecedent  probability,  one  of  the  tests 
is  to  follow  through  all  the  necessary  steps  from 
the  known  cause  to  the  unknown  effect  which  you 
are  trying  to  substantiate,  and  see  if  every  essential 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  89 

step  is  present,  see  if  the  chain  is  complete  in  every 
respect. 

(II)  Is  the  cause  sufficient  to  produce  the  effect 
in  question?     Could  such  a  little  cause  be  the  real 
cause  of  such  a  great  effect?     The  application  of 
this  attack  is  simply  to  demonstrate  the  dispropor- 
tion between  the  known  cause  and  the  unknown  ef- 
fect which  is  alleged  to  have  arisen,  or  to  be  go- 
ing to  arise,   from  this  known  effect.     The  argu- 
ment that  "  A  "  will  probably  kill  "  B  "  when  they 
meet  to-morrow  because  of  a  quarrel  which  they 
had  yesterday  may  be  very  well  attacked  in  this 
manner  by  showing  that  the  quarrel  is  altogether 
too  insignificant  to  result  in  murder. 

(III)  Did  some  other  cause  operate  to  prevent 
the  normal  action  of  the  known  cause  under  discus- 
sion?    Was    the    water    from    the    infected    well 
boiled?     Or  had  the  people  been  vaccinated  for  ty- 
phoid?    Has   an   antidote   been   applied?     If  you 
argue  that  because  a  certain  man  took  poison  yes- 
terday morning  he  must  be  dead  by  this  time,  the 
argument  may  be  answered  by  showing  that  an 
antidote  has   been   administered,   or  probably   has 
been  administered,  in  order  "to  cut  off  the  normal 
action  of  the  known  cause.     So  we  apply  this  test 
in  all  argument  of  this  type  when  we  wish  to  show 
that  in  spite  of  the  natural  strength  of  the  cause 
and  effect  connection  in  the  antecedent  probability 


90  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

argument,  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  has  been  turned 
aside  by  the  operation  of  some  other  cause. 

(IV)  Is  there  an  entirely  different  argument 
from  cause  and  effect  that  should  be  substituted 
for  the  one  advanced?  For  instance,  suppose  a 
lawyer  in  a  criminal  trial  is  endeavoring  to  convict 
A  of  the  murder  of  B,  and  argues  from  the  fact 
that  A  knew  that  he  would  inherit  $10,000  on  the 
death  of  B  that  A  probably  killed  B.  He  uses  this 
as  A's  motive.  This  is  the  known  fact  or  cause 
which  he  is  using  in  an  antecedent  probability  ar- 
gument. Notice  that  he  is  not  trying  to  prove  from 
this  fact  that  B  is  dead,  but  that  A  is  a  murderer. 
As  guilt  is  the  unknown  effect  which  he  is  arguing 
follows  from  this  known  cause,  A's  motive,  his 
knowledge  that  he  would  inherit  $10,000  on  the 
death  of  B.  This  argument  is  attacked  very  suc- 
cessfully by  showing  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  C 
knew  he  would  inherit  $1,000,000  on  the  death  of 
B.  This  might  not  dispose  of  the  case  against  A, 
but  it  is  a  very  satisfactory  answer  to  this  particular 
antecedent  probability  argument  as  far  as  it  can 
be  said  to  stand  alone.  In  other  words,  other  things 
being  equal,  a  million  dollar  motive  is  much  more 
potent  than  a  ten  thousand  dollar  motive.  If  all 
that  you  had  to  hold  A  on  should  be  this  question 
of  motive,  bringing  up  the  $10,000  as  against  the 
$1,000,000,  C  would  probably  be  held  and  A  would 
be  released.  So  even  when  the  antecedent  argu- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  91 

ment  is  being  used  to  establish  some  fact  which 
needs  to  be  established  in  order  to  explain  some 
further  situation,  which  is  the  case  here,  we  may 
attack  it  very  effectively  by  showing  that  another 
argument  of  the  same  general  nature  but  actually 
much  stronger  is  really  available,  and  we  offer  it 
as  a  complete  substitute  for  the  argument  which  we 
wish  to  have  dropped. 

2.  Sign.  The  second  type  of  argument  with 
which  we  have  to  deal  is  the  argument  from  sign. 
Here  the  known  fact  is  taken  as  the  sign  of  the 
unknown  fact.  One  thing  is  used  as  the  sign  of 
another.  This  argument  has  three  divisions  —  ef- 
fect to  cause,  effect  to  effect,  and  association. 

a.  Effect  to  cause.  This  is  the  exact  opposite 
of  the  one  from  antecedent  probability.  Here  in- 
stead of  using  a  known  fact  as  the  cause  of  the 
effect  which  we  wish  to  infer,  we  use  it  as  an  ef- 
fect of  the  cause  whose  existence  we  wish  to  es- 
tablish. We  say  that  ice  in  the  water  pail  shows 
that  it  was  below  freezing  last  night.  The  ice  is 
the  effect  of  the  low  temperature,  and  we  infer 
the  fact  that  the  temperature  has  been  low  from 
the  fact  that  the  ice  has  formed.  So  we  argue  from 
the  fact  that  people  who  have  been  drinking  water 
out  of  a  certain  spring  are  all  ill,  that  the  water 
in  the  spring  is  impure.  We  argue  the  impurity 
of  the  water  from  the  effect  which  it  had  upon  peo- 
ple who  drank  it.  Their  illness  is  the  result  of  the 


92  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

bad  water,  and  our  reasoning  proceeds  back  along 
the  line  of  causal  connection  from  a  known  effect  to 
an  unknown  or  disputed  cause. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack.  There  are  three  recog- 
nized attacks  on  this  type  of  argument.  (A)  One 
might  show  that  the  effect  is  due  to  some  other  cause 
than  the  one  alleged.  Attack  the  argument  by 
showing  that  these  people  have  been  not  only  drink- 
ing water  from  this  spring,  but  they  have  all  been 
eating  certain  food  which  may  have  been  the  cause, 
or  they  have  all  been  in  the  atmosphere  of  an  un- 
derground mine  which  may  have  caused  their  ill- 
ness, or  in  other  ways  try  to  explain  the  known 
effect  by  showing  that  it  arises  from  other  causes 
than  the  one  alleged. 

(B)  Is  the  alleged  cause  capable  of  having  the 
effect  of  the  effect  in  question f  Remember  that 
the  effect  is  known,  that  we  start  with  something 
that  has  happened  and  argue  that  something  else 
must  be  true  or  must  have  happened  because  it  is 
the  cause  of  that  which  we  know.  A  house  is 
burned,  and  someone  argues  from  that  fact  that 
the  electric  wiring  in  it  must  have  been  defective. 
He  argues  that  defective  wiring  is  the  explanation 
of  the  known  effect  of  the  fire.  This  may  be  at- 
tacked by  showing  that  the  house  seemed  to  break 
out  in  flames  at  a  number  of  points  at  the  same 
time.  In  other  words,  the  great  simultaneous  con- 
flagration that  swept  over  the  house  is  unsatis- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  93 

factorily  explained  by  the  defective  electric  wir- 
ing. The  alleged  cause  seemed  incapable  of  pro- 
ducing the  known  effect  on  which  the  argument 
is  based.  In  some  way  under  this  test  we  show 
that  the  alleged  cause  is  too  weak,  too  small,  too 
insignificant  to  cause  the  known  effect. 

(C)  Is  the  cause  and  effect  connection  complete? 
This  is  the  same  test  which  has  already  been  ap- 
plied to  the  argument  from  antecedent  probability. 
Of  course,  when  a  single  link  is  missing  in  the 
chain  of  causal  connection,  it  is  impossible  to  travel 
either  up  or  down  the  chain  in  either  direction. 
If  any  necessary  step  in  the  connection  between  the 
effect  and  the  alleged  cause  can  be  shown  to  be 
missing,  the  argument  necessarily  falls.  When  it 
is  attempted  to  prove  from  the  fact  that  a  man  has 
been  badly  beaten,  that  a  given  person  did  it,  it 
may  be  shown  that  some  necessary  factors  were 
lacking,  such  as  opportunity  or  ability  to  do  what 
was  done. 

b.  Effect  to  effect.  The  second  type  of  argument 
from  sign  is  the  argument  from  effect  to  effect. 
We  see  one  thing  and  hail  it  as  a  sign  of  another 
thing,  not  when  it  is  either  the  cause  of  that  other 
thing  or  the  effect  of  that  other  thing,  but  when 
it  arises  from  a  cause  which  we  argue  will  also 
cause  the  other  effect  whose  existence  we  wish  to 
prove.  When  we  argue  that  the  vegetables  will 
be  frozen  in  the  morning  from  the  fact  that  the 


94  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

thermometer  outside  the  window  registers  20  de- 
grees, we  are  using  this  type  of  argument.  The 
thermometer  does  not  freeze  the  vegetables,  nor 
do  the  freezing  vegetables  in  any  way  affect  the 
thermometer.  But  the  registering  of  the  ther- 
mometer and  the  freezing  of  the  vegetables  are 
both  effects  of  the  same  cause,  the  low  tempera- 
ture, so  when  we  argue  the  one  from  the  other, 
we  are  arguing  from  effect  to  effect  of  a  common 
cause. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack.  This  argument  when 
analyzed  is  found  essentially  to  be  a  combination 
of  the  two  forms  of  argument  already  discussed, 
namely :  an  argument  from  sign,  from  the  observed 
effect  back  to  the  common  cause,  which  is  estab- 
lished by  the  type  of  argument  we  have  just  dis- 
cussed, and  then  an  argument  from  this  common 
cause  to  the  effect  alleged  by  antecedent  probabil- 
ity. It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  attacks  upon 
this  argument  are  those  already  given  for  the  two 
types  of  argument  already  discussed. 

c.  Association.  The  third  type  of  argument 
from  sign  is  called  the  argument  from  association, 
or  from  the  association  of  phenomena  in  the  past. 
In  this  argument,  without  thinking  in  terms  of 
cause  and  effect,  or  following  out  lines  of  causal 
connection,  we  simply  see  one  thing  and  treat  it 
as  the  sign  of  something  else  because  we  have  been 
accustomed  to  seeing  the  two  go  together.  So  on 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  95 

seeing  a  given  dog,  we  infer  the  presence  of  his 
master.  On  seeing  a  friend's  hat  in  our  hall  as 
we  enter  the  house,  we  jump  to  the  conclusion  that 
our  friend  is  there.  The  inferences  usually  drawn 
from  a  half-masted  flag,  crepe  on  a  door,  rice 
and  confetti  scattered  about  the  entrance  to  a  house, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  all  arguments  of  this  type.  These 
arguments  are  not  very  strong  standing  by  them- 
selves, because  it  is  always  so  possible  that  the 
dog  is  following  some  other  man  than  his  master; 
that  someone  else  has  borrowed  your  friend's  hat, 
or  your  friend's  horse,  or  your  friend's  coat;  that 
the  flag,  or  the  crepe,  or  the  rice  and  confetti  are 
the  result  of  accident,  or  practical  jokes.  This 
type  of  argument,  while  unsatisfactory  when  stand- 
ing alone,  is  really  quite  significant  as  corrobora- 
tive evidence.  The  finding  of  a  man's  hat,  or  horse, 
or  dog  near  the  scene  of  a  crime  of  which  he  is 
already  suspected  for  other  reasons,  is  a  serious 
addition  to  the  case  against  him.  The  strength  of 
the  argument  lies  in  the  unexpressed  generaliza- 
tion which  is  always  to  be  found  at  the  basis  of 
our  argument  from  association.  We  have  seen  the 
two  things  together  so  often  that  we  act  on  an  un- 
expressed general  rule  that  where  one  is  the  other 
is  also. 

(I)  The  methods  of  attack  are  essentially  those 
of  generalization.  The  argument  can  be  answered 
by  showing  that  the  instances  in  which  this  dog 


96  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

and  this  man  have  been  seen  together  are  too  few 
to  establish  the  rule  that  the  presence  of  one  means 
the  presence  of  the  other,  or  that  the  dog  has  been 
seen  with  other  men  at  certain  times.  Establish- 
ing the  fact  that  the  exchanging  of  hats,  horses, 
bicycles,  is  a  common  thing  among  the  people  con- 
cerned, or  by  destroying  the  corroborative  function 
of  the  argument  by  showing  that  instead  of  cor- 
roborating an  already  established  case,  it  is  ac- 
tually inconsistent  with  facts  already  known,  is 
effective  refutation. 

3.  Example.  The  third  general  type  of  argu- 
ments are  those  from  example.  Arguments  from 
example  are  arguments  which  depend  for  their 
strength  upon  the  resemblance  between  the  case 
in  question  and  some  other  case  or  cases.  Argu- 
ments from  example  are  classified  under  two  heads, 
those  by  generalization,  and  those  by  analogy. 

a.  Generalization.  The  argument  by  generaliza- 
tion consists  of  the  promulgation  of  a  general  rule 
from  a  study  of  specific  examples,  and  then  the 
application  of  this  general  rule  to  the  point  in 
question.  Hasty  generalization  is  one  of  the  com- 
monest faults  in  discussion.  When  we  accuse  one 
of  hasty  generalization,  we  mean  that  he  has  es- 
tablished his  general  rule  without  sufficient  study. 
Generalizations  concerning  the  character  of  people 
attending  a  certain  school  or  college,  the  inhabi- 
tants of  a  certain  city  or  state,  the  members  of  a 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  97 

certain  club,  or  racial  group,  or  political  party, 
which  are  based  principally  upon  experience  with 
one  or  two  individuals,  are  all  examples  of  hasty 
generalization.  When  a  very  careful  examination 
of  a  large  number  of  people,  in  a  given  institution 
or  group  is  made,  then  the  result  may  be  stated 
as  a  general  rule  which  will,  on  the  whole,  apply 
fairly  to  members  of  that  institution  or  group. 
This  is  an  example  of  sound  generalization. 

(I)  Methods  of  attack.  There  are  then,  clearly, 
two  methods  of  attack  upon  this  type  of  argument. 

(A)  Are  the  specimens  upon  which  the  general- 
ization is  based  fair  specimens  in  regard  to  the 
point  in  issue?  It  is  usually  possible  for  an  un- 
fair or  dishonest  propagandist  to  choose  unfair 
specimens  in  regard  to  the  point  in  issue,  and  re- 
turn from  the  specimens  chosen  (which  he  knew  in 
advance  would  be  favorable  to  the  side  he  repre- 
sents) a  conclusion  on  the  general  subject,  a  gen- 
eralization for  a  whole  situation.  For  instance, 
one  may  say  that  in  a  school  of  400  or  500  stu- 
dents, he  asked  100  students  whether  they  approved 
a  certain  measure,  and  that  99  out  of  the  100 
answered  yes,  and  from  this  he  would  make  a  gen- 
eralization to  the  effect  that  the  students  of  that 
school  are  practically  unanimous  in  supporting  the 
cause  under  discussion.  If  the  question  happens  to 
concern  a  particular  situation  or  association,  and 
there  are  100  students  out  of  500  who  are  inter- 


98  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ested  in  this  particular  situation  or  association,  and 
the  100  members  he  asked  were  the  100  members 
interested  in  the  question,  it  is  clear  that  his  speci- 
mens are  unfair,  and  that  his  results  are  entirely 
unsatisfactory  as  a  basis  of  any  conclusion  in  re- 
gard to  the  school.  So  if  the  question  arises  in 
regard  to  fraternities,  and  the  generalization  be 
based  upon  100  or  200,  all  from  a  known  fraternity 
group  (or  a  known  non- fraternity  group),  it  is  an 
unfair  generalization,  a  dishonest  mode  of  argu- 
ment, and  is  truly  worthless  as  a  basis  for  a  general- 
ization in  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  student  body 
on  the  question  under  discussion.  Unless  fair 
specimens  are  chosen  for  examination,  a  generaliza- 
tion resulting  from  the  study  of  these  specimens  is 
wholly  untrustworthy.  It  is  dishonesty  of  this 
kind  in  generalization  which  is  the  most  difficult  to 
see,  and  a  worthless  generalization  of  this  sort  is 
the  easiest  for  investigators  to  make,  and  to  make 
with  considerable  plausibility.  So  whenever  there 
is  a  generalization  to  be  made,  either  by  yourself 
or  some  one  else,  you  should  be  very  sure  that  the 
specimens  upon  which  the  generalization  is  based 
are  fair  specimens  in  regard  to  the  point  covered. 

B.  Enough  specimens.  The  second  test  of  gen- 
eralization is,  "Has  a  large  enough  part  of  the 
class  been  observed  to  justify  an  inference  regard- 
ing the  whole  class,  or  the  unobserved  part  of  it?  " 
Choosing  perfectly  fair  specimens  from  among  a 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  99 

given  group  does  not  make  your  generalization 
good.  You  must  also  have  a  sufficient  part.  The 
opinion  of  a  dozen  representative  students  out  of 
i OCX)  is  a  very  weak  basis  upon  which  to  generalize 
concerning  the  opinion  of  the  whole  group.  The 
manners  or  morality  of  a  half-dozen  students  of  a 
given  institution  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  basis  for 
a  generalization  regarding  500  students.  Unless 
the  generalization  is  based  upon  a  sufficiently  large 
part  of  the  class,  it  is  quite  untrustworthy.  In 
some  fields  of  thought  generalization  is  sound  when 
drawn  from  a  smaller  number  of  instances  than 
would  be  allowable  in  other  fields.  For  instance, 
in  a  physical  or  chemical  laboratory,  an  experiment 
may  be  performed  with  such  care  and  the  result  ob- 
tained with  such  accuracy  of  observation,  that  it 
will  establish  a  rule  for  that  particular  problem 
for  all  time.  One  can  make  a  generalization  from 
this  single  experiment  with  practically  no  possibil- 
ity of  being  led  astray  thereby.  This  would  be 
generalizing  from  a  single  instance.  It  may  be 
perfectly  allowable  in  physics  or  chemistry  or  other 
fields  in  which  inanimate  material  reacts  according 
to  universal  laws.  From  such  cases  we  may  move 
through  the  whole  scale  to  fields  in  which  we  gen- 
eralize concerning  problems  where  the  number  of 
cases  necessary  for  a  sound  generalization  must  be 
very  great  indeed,  and  even  then  about  all  we  can 
hope  for  is  a  high  degree  of  probability.  This  sit- 


ioo  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

uation  always  obtains  when  we  are  trying  to  gen- 
eralize about  matters  affected  by  human  will,  emo- 
tions, tastes,  desires,  ambitions.  It  is  so  difficult 
to  be  sure  that  some  particular  individual,  some  par- 
ticular human  being,  is  going  to  react  to  a  certain 
influence  and  environment  exactly  as  hundreds  of 
others  have  acted.  It  may  be  highly  probable,  but 
it  is  hardly  certain.  Of  course  a  human  being  will 
react  precisely  like  inanimate  material  in  regard  to 
certain  physical  qualities  which  he  possesses  in 
common  with  inanimate  material.  One  experiment 
to  show  that  a  certain  substance  is  a  deadly  poison 
to  a  human  being  would  probably  be  sufficient  to 
establish  the  rule  for  all  time,  though  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily true  in  all  instances  that  what  will  poison 
one  man  will  poison  another.  So  we  cannot  have 
a  generalization  of  our  own  to  the  effect  that  a  cer- 
tain percentage  of  cases  must  be  examined  to  make 
a  generalization  sound,  but  each  case  must  be  de- 
cided according  to  the  standards  and  circumstances 
controlling  the  field  in  which  it  lies.  We  may  have 
all  gradations  from  a  single  instance  in  chemistry 
establishing  for  all  time  a  new  law  for  the  case  in 
question,  to  at  best  a  high  degree  of  probability 
based  upon  a  great  number  of  instances  in  the  field 
of  human  conduct. 

b.  Analogy.     The  second  type  of  argument  from 
example  is  called  an  analogy.     Argument  of  this 


AND  ORAL  BISeOSSK&JN  toi 

sort  is  spoken  of  as  of  two  kinds,  figurative  and 
literal. 

(I)  The  figurative  analogy  is  an  analogy  based 
upon  cases  which  are  not  alike  in  themselves,  but 
are  alike  in  the  relations  they  bear  to  other  things. 
\Ye  are  dealing  with  a  resemblance  of  relations, 
not   with   actual   likeness   between   two   examples. 
Analogy  concerning  the  resemblance  between  the  cir- 
culation of  blood  and  circulation  of  money;  the  life 
of  a  man,  and  the  life  of  a  tree;  the  spread  of  ideas, 
and  the  spread  of  disease;  a  church  and  a  mustard 
seed;  etc.,  are  all  figurative  analogies.     A  figura- 
tive analogy  is  often  very  useful  as  a  method  of 
explanation,  it  helps  us  to  make  clear  what  we  have 
in  mind.     It  is  a  very  weak  form  of  argument,  be- 
cause it  is  always  possible  to  point  out  what  is 
called  a  "  false  analogy,"  to  show  that  the  resem- 
blances are  not  sufficiently  parallel  to  warrant  any 
conclusion.     The  ease  with  which  false  analogies 
may  be  brought  out  is  so  great  that  it  is  probably 
safest  to  have  a  general  rule  against  using  figura-    • 
tive  analogy  as  an  argument  at  all.     But  we  should 
keep  it  in  mind  simply  as  a  convenient  help  in  ex- 
position,  as  a  means  of  making  clear  what   our 
position  is  in  regard  to  a  subject,  rather  than  as  a 
means  of  getting  someone  else  to  agree  with 

in  this  position. 

(II)  Literal  analogy  is  simply  a  generalization 


.102  A'MAXUAL  OF  DEBATE 

from  a  single  instance  which  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed. But  some  people  apply  the  word  analogy 
to  this  form  of  argument,  and  they  show  good 
precedent  for  such  use  of  the  term.  For  instance, 
a  given  student  enters  a  university  from  a  certain 
high  school.  He  has  studied  English  History  five 
hours  a  week,  for  fifteen  weeks,  with  a  certain 
teacher,  a  certain  textbook,  and  has  passed  the 
course  with  a  certain  mark.  At  the  university,  on 
this  showing,  he  is  allowed  to  enter  an  advanced 
course  in  English  History.  It  is  found  later  that 
he  is  quite  unable  to  carry  the  work  that  this  ad- 
vanced course  entails,  and  is  forced  to  take  more 
elementary  work.  The  next  year  another  student 
comes  to  the  university  from  the  same  high  school, 
and  asks  permission  to  take  the  same  advanced 
course  in  history,  on  a  record  identical  in  all  re- 
spects with  that  of  the  student  just  mentioned.  The 
instructor  in  charge  compares  his  record  in  the  high 
school  work  with  that  of  the  student  who  found  the 
advanced  history  work  in  the  university  too  hard, 
and  concludes  from  the  fact  that  the  cases  agree 
in  so  many  respects  that  they  will  agree  in  this 
particular  respect, —  inability  to  carry  this  advanced 
course  in  the  university.  On  this  basis,  he  refuses 
permission  to  the  second  student  to  take  the  ad- 
vanced course.  This  type  of  argument  would  be 
called  by  some  people  an  analogy ;  by  others  it  would 
be  called  a  generalization  from  a  single  instance, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  103 

and  there  is  ample  precedent  for  either  position.  It 
is  a  generalization  from  a  single  instance,  because 
the  instructor  in  substance  establishes  a  general  rule 
to  the  effect  that  any  student  with  this  record  is 
unable  to  take  the  advanced  course,  and  he  applies 
that  general  rule  to  one  student,  or  to  a  dozen  as 
the  circumstances  may  require.  He  is  generalizing 
from  a  single  instance.  But  also  it  is  said  that  he 
has  two  cases  which  are  alike  in  so  many  points  that 
he  concludes  that  they  will  be  alike  in  the  point  in 
dispute,  and  this  is  one  of  the  old,  accepted  defini- 
tions of  analogy. 

(Ill)  Methods  of  attack.  The  proper  tests  of 
this  form  of  argument  are  tests  for  generaliza- 
tion: Is  the  example  on  which  he  has  based  his 
decision  a  fair  specimen,  that  is,  are  the  cases 
sufficiently  alike  so  that  we  may  infer  that  if  a 
larger  number  of  specimens  were  examined,  the 
generalization  would  be  substantially  the  same?  Is 
this  a  case  in  which  we  are  justified  in  generaliz- 
ing from  a  single  instance?  If  it  is,  our  argument 
is  sound,  and  it  does  not  matter  greatly  whether 
or  not  this  is  called  a  generalization  from  a  single 
instance  or  a  literal  analogy. 


in  tiire 


EXERCISES 


i.  Hand  in  three  examples  of  each  of  the  following, 
indicating  which  method  of  attack  best  exposes  the 
weakness  of  each. 

a.  Antecedent  probability. 


104  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

b.  Effect  to  effect. 

c.  Effect  to  cause. 

d.  Association. 

e.  Generalization. 

f.  Literal   analogy. 

g.  Figurative  analogy. 


CHAPTER  VII 

X 

REFUTATION 

A.  Definition. 

B.  Affirmative  and  negative. 

C.  What  to  refute. 

D.  Phrasing  refutation. 

E.  Time  and   place   for  refutation. 

F.  Rebuttal   speeches. 

G.  New  constructive  argument  in  rebuttal. 
H.  Methods  of  refutation. 

I.  Preparation  of  refutation. 

A.  Definitions,     The  term  "  refutation "   is  ap- 
plied to  that  part  of  an  argument  which  is  devoted 
to   destroying   the,  proofs   of   an   opponent.     The 
word  "  rebuttal  "  is  very  nearly  synonymous,  but 
is  usually  used  to  designate  a  special  speech,  the 
principal  purpose  of  which  is  refutation.     In  other 
words,  the  term  "  refutation  "  as  commonly  used  is 
a  more  general  term  than  "  rebuttal."     It  is  usual 
to  speak  of  refutation  in  a  main  speech,  or  refuta- 
tion which  is  scattered  along  through  a  whole  de- 
bate,  and  to   refer  to  the  second   speech  of  any 
speaker,  when  his  purpose  is  principally  to  attack 
the  other  side,  as  a  rebuttal  speech. 

B.  Affirmative  and  negative.    The  relation  of  the 
affirmative  and  negative  to  the  whole  problem  of 

105 


106  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

refutation  differs  somewhat,  as  may  be  seen  by 
reference  to  the  chapter  on  analysis.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  affirmative  to  establish  the  affirmative  of  the 
proposition.  They  carry  the  burden  of  proving  it. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  negative  to  prevent  the  affirma- 
tive from  so  establishing  the  proposition.  Theirs 
is  a  burden  of  rebuttal;*; that  is,  they  have  a  burden 
of  rebuttal  as  soon  as  the  affirmative  have  estab- 
lished a  prima  facie  case.  Sometimes  the  negative 
is  justified  in  resting  solely  upon  refutation,  of  de- 
voting their  entire  energy  to  attacking  the  proofs 
of  the  affirmative.  (See  the  first  type  of  negative 
case,  Chapter  III.)  The  affirmative,  of  course,  can 
never  take  this  position.  Their  first  duty  is  con- 
structive proof,  and  refutation  is  to  them  incidental. 
Refutation  is  worth  while  to  them  only  as  clearing 
the  way  for  their  constructive  case.  On  the  side  of 
the  negative,  constructive  work  is,  in  a  sense,  in- 
cidental, and  its  purpose  is  to  offer  something  which 
will  block  the  affirmative  case.  But  even  though 
fundamentally  the  attitude  of  the  two  sides  toward 
the  problems  of  refutation  may  thus  differ,  in  the 
details  of  handling  refutation,  both  sides  have  the 
same  principles  to  observe  and  substantially  the 
same  work  to  do. 

C.  The  question  of  what  to  refute  in  any  case 
is  one  of  first  importance.  Unless  you  choose  to 
refute  the  proper  things  in  the  case  of  an  opponent, 
you  may  well  waste  your  efforts  entirely,  or  even 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  107 

worse,  you  may  make  your  own  position  weaker 
than  it  really  is,  and  so  aid  your  opponent  in  estab- 
lishing his  contentions.  The  basis  of  refutation,  the 
same  as  the  basis  of  constructive  work,  should  be 
a  very  careful  analysis  of  the  whole  problem.  Be- 
fore you  begin  the  work  of  refutation,  you  should 
know  what  constitutes  the  very  heart  of  your  op- 
ponent's position.  It  is  necessary  to  know  the  is- 
sues and  to  know  the  relation  of  your  opponent  to 
the  issues  before  you  undertake  to  refute  him.  It 
often  happens  that  an  opponent,  either  through  slov- 
enly work  or  a  desire  not  to  make  his  position  clear, 
omits  analysis  and  partition,  omits  in  fact  any 
statement  of  exactly  what  is  the  basis  of  his  case. 
In  such  a  situation,  before  you  begin  refutation, 
you  must  analyze  the  contentions  of  the  other  side 
to  find  the  big  basic  points  upon  which  the  case 
of  your  opponent  depends.  These  points  are  the 
ones  to  be  refuted.  Taking  note  of  all  the  little 
details  of  an  opponent's  speech,  and  then  attempting 
to  show  him  to  be  wrong  in  regard  to  twenty  or 
thirty  different  points  is  rarely  effective  refuta- 
tion. Sometimes,  it  is  true,  the  mere  accumulation 
of  such  a  mass  of  error  on  the  part  of  your  op- 
ponent will  make  the  audience  doubt  him  completely 
and  so  turn  from  his  contentions  as  a  whole;  but 
such  a  mass  of  details  is  tiresome  to  the  audience, 
hard  to  follow,  hard  to  grasp  the  significance  of, 
and  very  often  takes  more  time  than  you  can  have 


io8  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

at  your  disposal.  So  instead  of  noting  down  small 
details  of  error,  you  should  seek  out  in  the  con- 
tentions of  your  opponent,  the  fundamental  points 
upon  which  his  whole  case  rests,  remembering  that 
if  you  can  destroy  one  or  more  of  the  really  vital 
elements  of  your  opponent's  case,  his  whole  case  is 
destroyed.  Perhaps  analogies  will  make  this  plain. 
If  you  wish  to  kill  an  animal,  a  shot  in  the  heart 
or  the  brain  will  accomplish  the  purpose  quickly 
and  positively.  It  is  not  necessary  to  hack  a  crea- 
ture to  pieces  in  order  to  bring  about  death.  In 
the  same  way  it  is  not  necessary  to  tear  up  every 
scrap  of  evidence  and  every  contention  of  the  other 
side  in  order  to  destroy  his  case  as  a  whole.  One 
or  two  well  directed  shots  which  will  destroy  vital 
considerations  will  leave  the  whole  case  dead.  It 
is  such  shots  that  make  good  refutation.  Or  sup- 
pose your  purpose  is  to  sink  a  ship.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  demolish  the  whole  ship,  to  riddle  it  fore 
and  aft  with  shots.  One  or  two  good  holes  below 
the  water  line  will  accomplish  your  full  purpose. 
So  in  debate,  aim  to  put  a  very  few  holes  so  big 
they  cannot  be  repaired  below  the  water  line  of 
your  opponent's  case  and  the  case  will  go  down. 
In  other  words,  always  attempt  to  show  in  refuta- 
tion that  your  opponent  is  wrong  in  regard  to  one 
or  more  contentions  upon  which  it  is  necessary  that 
he  be  right  in  order  to  establish  his  case. 

D.  In   phrasing   refutation   always   make   three 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  109 

things  clear  to  your  opponents,  audience,  and  judges. 
First,  show  that  the  material  you  are  giving  is 
refutation  and  not  constructive  proof.  This  may 
always  be  done  by  introducing  refutation  by  such 
a  phrase  as,  "  In  answer  to  the  contention  of  my 
opponent  that,"  etc.  In  some  way  or  other  make 
it  perfectly  clear  that  you  are  answering  your  op- 
ponent. A  careful  observance  of  this  principle  will 
keep  you  from  indulging  that  most  stupid  and  con- 
temptible trick  in  debating  —  refuting  straw  men, 
refuting  as  contentions  which  your  opponent  had 
made  points  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  not 
make.  In  other  words,  do  not  refute  anything 
which  your  opponent  has  not  brought  up  in  the  de- 
bate, unless  you  do  it  frankly  as  anticipatory  refu- 
tation, in  which  you  make  it  clear  that  you  are 
offering  this  in  answer  to  something  which  you  ex- 
pect your  opponent  to  say.  There  may  be  cir- 
cumstances in  which  you  feel  quite  sure  that  your 
opponent  is  going  to  make  a  certain  contention,  and 
you  think  that  something  would  be  gained  by  fore- 
stalling that.  In  such  case,  it  is  perfectly  proper 
to  tell  your  audience  that  you  expect  your  opponent 
to  argue  so  and  so  and  that  when  he  does,  if  he 
does,  you  would  like  to  have  them  keep  the  follow- 
ing things  in  mind,  etc.  If  you  make  it  clear  that 
you  are  offering  this  in  answer  to  something  which 
you  expect  will  be  said  later,  your  position  is  per- 
fectly sound.  However,  if  you  offer  it  as  though 


no  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

it  were  in  answer  to  something  that  has  been  said, 
when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  your  opponent  has  not 
yet  made  such  an  argument,  then  your  position  is 
wholly  unsound.  It  is  dishonest  and  bungling 
work.  Any  judge  is  justified  in  drawing  the  con- 
clusion that  you  have  memorized  a  rebuttal  to  meet 
an  imaginary  case,  and  that  you  are  not  a  good 
enough  debater  to  wait  until  you  hear  what  your 
opponent  has  to  say  and  then  answer  that. 

In  the  second  place,  in  introducing  refutation, 
make  perfectly  clear  the  nature  of  the  answer  that 
you  are  giving.  This  is  a  point  that  is  missed 
altogether  too  often  by  inexperienced  debaters. 
There  are  so  many  things  that  you  may  wish  to 
urge  in  opposition  to  something  in  an  opponent's 
case  that  you  should  be  very  careful  to  choose  just 
what  your  answer  is  going  to  be  and  then  let  your 
audience  know  it.  For  instance,  you  may  wish  to 
show  that  evidence  is  forged;  that  it  is  inaccurate; 
that  it  is  insufficient;  that  it  is  irrelevant;  that  it  is 
ambiguous;  that  it  is  false,  etc.  Or  you  may  wish 
to  show  that  inferences  drawn  from  this  evidence 
are  illogical,  that  the  reasoning  about  the  evidence 
is  poor.  There  are  a  .great  variety  of  positions 
which  you  might  take,  all  of  which  would  be  proper 
positions  in  refutation.  Make  it  clear  to  your 
audience  in  the  beginning  just  what  your  objection 
is  to  the  particular  contention  that  you  are  at- 
tempting to  refute. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  in 

Then,  in  the  third  place,  proceed  by  an  orderly 
method  to  do  precisely  what  you  said  you  were  go- 
ing to  do.  If  you  have  claimed  that  certain  evi- 
dence offered  by  the  other  side  is  irrelevant,  then 
show  that  it  is  irrelevant,  and  not  that  it  is  un- 
true. If  you  have  claimed  that  the  evidence  is  in- 
sufficient, then  show  that  it  is  insufficient,  and  not 
that  it  comes  from  a  questionable  source.  In  all 
refutation  think  straight,  and  choose  your  words 
accurately. 

E.  The  time  or  place  for  refutation  is,  in  round 
terms,  whatever  time  and  place  will  do  the  most 
good.  There  are  no  rigid  rules  governing  the  time 
or  place  for  refutation.  Of  course  an  affirmative 
cannot  very  well  indulge  in  refutation  until  after 
the  negative  has  had  a  chance  to  speak.  But  there 
is  no  reason  why  all  the  speakers  on  the  negative 
and  all  the  speakers  except  the  first  on  the  affirma- 
tive should  not  put  refutation  into  their  main 
speeches.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  first  affirma- 
tive may  offer  anticipatory  refutation  if  he  thinks 
it  wise.  The  rule  of  brief  drawing  which  says  that 
refutation  should  be  introduced  at  whatever  point 
objections  to  one's  case  naturally  arise,  may  be 
followed  not  only  in  the  brief,  but  also  in  the  out- 
line, and  in  the  give  and  take  of  the  actual  debate. 
At  whatever  point  in  your  constructive  speech  some- 
thing arises  in  your  mind  or  in  the  mind  of  the 
audience  which  has  been  said  by  the  negative,  and 


ii2  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

which  serves  as  a  hindrance  to  your  speech  at  that 
point,  proceed  at  once  to  refute  that  point  of  your 
opponent.  Of  course  it  is  difficult  to  lay  down 
absolute  rules  here.  However,  if  the  debater  real- 
izes that  when  he  has  a  constructive  duty  to  per- 
form, no  amount  of  refutation  will  take  the  place 
of  that  constructive  duty,  then  he  may  well  follow 
this  principle  that  refutation  may  be  introduced 
at  any  point. 

F.  Rebuttal  speeches.  In  some  debates  specific 
rebuttal  speeches  are  not  made,  each  speaker  in- 
troducing whatever  'refutation  seems  best  to  him 
in  his  main  speech, —  the  only  speech  which  he 
makes.  In  other  debates,  the  affirmative  has  one 
short  rebuttal  speech  after  the  negative  case  is  com- 
pletely closed.  In  other  debates,  and  this  rule  is 
the  most  common  in  contest  debating  to-day,  each 
speaker  on  each  side  comes  to  the  platform  a  sec- 
ond time  to  give  a  rebuttal  speech.  Where  this 
arrangement  is  followed  the  speakers  would  do  well 
to  make  a  clean-cut  distinction  between  constructive 
work  and  rebuttal,  and  only  such  refutation  as  is 
absolutely  necessary  should  be  introduced  into  the 
main  speeches.  The  main  speeches  should  all  be 
presented,  and  then  the  work  or  rebuttal  should  be 
taken  up  separately.  If,  however,  during  the  course 
of  such  a  debate  an  opponent  has  made  a  point 
which  seems  to  stand  clearly  in  the  way,  and  you 
fear  that  it  will  prevent  the  audience  from  accept- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  113 

ing  what  you  have  to  say,  then  you  should  either 
pause  in  your  main  speech  to  refute  the  contention 
of  your  opponent,  or  you  should  ask  your  audience 
to  remain  openminded  on  that  point  until  you  have 
had  an  opportunity  to  deal  with  it  in  rebuttal. 

G.  New  constructive  argument  may  not  be  pre- 
sented in  time  set  apart  for  rebuttal  speeches  in 
debate.  This  principle  means  that  constructive 
speeches  may  not  be  simply  continued  in  rebuttal 
speeches,  important  arguments  may  not  be  held 
back  till  too  late  to  be  answered  by  opponents. 
When  the  main  speeches  are  over,  the  audience, 
judges,  and  opposing  debaters  should  know  your 
case  and  all  of  your  arguments  in  favor  of  your 
side.  In  rebuttal  speeches  you  may  introduce  any 
material  to  refute  your  opponents,  either  what  they 
have  said  in  favor  of  their  side  or  against  yours. 
So  new  evidence  to  bolster  up  points  they  have  at- 
tacked, or  to  show  them  to  be  wrong  in  their  own 
contentions  is  perfectly  allowable.  But  new  con- 
structive reasons  why  your  side  is  right  may  not  be 
introduced  into  rebuttal  speeches. 

H.  In  regard  to  methods  of  refutation,  it  seems 
enough  to  say  here  that  refutation  should  aim  at 
either  a  criticism  of  evidence  or  a  criticism  of  in- 
ference or  reasoning.  Make  clear  exactly  what  your 
objection  is  to  what  your  opponent  has  said.  Then 
if  your  objection  is  to  his  evidence  —  if  his  evidence 
fails  to  meet  any  of  the  tests  of  evidence  as  given 


H4  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

in  Chapter  V,  show  your  audience  precisely  how 
his  evidence  fails  to  come  up  to  the  test.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  repeat  the  tests  of  evidence  here.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  your  objection  is  to  the  infer- 
ence which  your  opponent  has  drawn  —  if  you  ob- 
ject to  the  conclusions  which  he  draws  from  his 
evidence, —  then  make  that  objection  perfectly  clear 
to  the  audience,  and  show  how  your  opponent  is 
arguing  badly.  Show  that  the  cause  and  effect  con- 
nection is  unsatisfactory;  show  that  the  generaliza- 
tion is  unwarranted ;  show  that  the  analogy  is  false ; 
show  precisely  how,  and  in  what  -way,  the  reason- 
ing of  your  opponent  is  at  fault.  The  tests  of  the 
methods  of  the  forms  of  argument  and  inference 
are  given  in  Chapter  VI.  Again,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  repeat  them  in  this  chapter.  A  review  at 
this  point  of  the  tests  of  evidence  and  the  tests 
of  the  forms  of  arguments  will  be  most  helpful. 
All  good  refutation  is  at  the  basis  an  attack  on  one 
or  the  other.  If  your  analysis  has  been  accurate, 
so  that  you  have  chosen  the  proper  attack  to  make, 
and  then  if  you  will  follow  through  .the  suggestions 
given  above  with  perfect  clearness  and  simplicity, 
you  will  be  giving  good  refutation. 

i.  The  preparation  of  refutation   for  any  im- 
portant debate  is  a  work  of  first  importance.     Refu- 
tation should  always  be  prepared,  and  refutation 
should  never  be  committed  to  memory.     In  other 
;  words,  you  should  anticipate  while  you  are  getting 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  115 

up  your  debate  or  discussion  the  position  which  your 
opponent  will  take.  If  he  has  a  choice  of  position, 
if  your  opponent  may  take  one  or  two  or  three 
different  stands  on  the  question,  then  analyze  each 
position,  pick  out  the  fundamental  contentions  which 
your  opponent  must  make  in  order  to  establish  each 
case.  Then  prepare  notes  and  evidence  for  effective 
refutation  of  each  possible  case.  With  such  notes 
and  evidence  readily  available,  perhaps  in  a  small 
card  index  filing  box,  you  ought  to  be  ready  to  meet 
your  opponent  on  any  phase  of  the  case  which  he 
wishes  to  discuss.  If  you  attempt  to  plan  a  single 
rebuttal  speech,  say  of  five  minutes'  length,  and 
either  memorize  it  or  prepare  a  definite  outline  of 
it  in  such  a  way  that  you  will  not  be  free  to  vary 
it,  you  may  very  well  find  yourself  prepared  to 
refute  only  contentions  which  have  been  admitted 
by  your  opponent  or  not  brought  into  the  discus- 
sion at  all.  Such  refutation  is  of  course  a  very 
stupid  performance.  It  is  only  the  debater  who  is 
ready  with  the  information  necessary  on  any  point 
in  the  case,  and  who  then  can  gather  up  this  in- 
formation and  meet  his  opponent  on  any  point  to 
which  he  may  turn  —  it  is  only  such  a  debater,  who 
is  really  ready  to  present  good  refutation.  So  the 
preparation  of  refutation  should  mean  a  very  care- 
ful research  into  each  important  phase  of  each 
possible  case  in  opposition  to  your  own  —  a  study 
of  how  best  to  meet  the  contentions  which  your 


n6  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

opponent  must  make  if  he  takes  certain  positions, 
and  then  an  accurate  gathering  together  of  the  evi- 
dence and  argument  necessary  to  refute  your  op- 
ponent in  each  such  position.  Refutation  so  pre- 
pared and  extemporaneously  presented  to  the  audi- 
ence and  judges,  is  the  highest  achievement  of  a 
debater.  Spontaneous,  extemporaneous,  thoroughly 
well-informed  refutation  of  an  opponent  is  the 
highest  exemplification  of  debating  ability.  Work 
of  this  character  is  of  course  utterly  impossible  to 
the  debater  who  is  afraid  to  meet  such  a  situation, 
and  who  therefore  fortifies  himself  with  woodenly 
prepared  or  perfectly  memorized  rebuttal  speeches. 

EXERCISE 

Write  out  complete  refutation  to  three  editorials  clipped 
from  recent  newspapers,  and  give  detailed  statement  of 
methods  of  refutation  used.  (Where  possible  this  exercise 
may  be  oral  rather  than  written.) 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ARRANGEMENT 

A.  Definition. 

B.  Three  great  rhetorical  principles. 

1.  Unity. 

2.  Coherence. 

3.  Emphasis. 

a.  Place  emphasis. 

b.  Space  emphasis. 

C.  Brief  and  outline. 

1.  A  brief. 

2.  An  outline. 

D.  Rules  for  brief  drawing. 

A.  Definition.     By  arrangement  is  meant,  the  de- 
tailed organization  and  plan  of  a  case.     No  steps 
in  the  preparation  of  a  debate  or  public  discussion 
or  public  speech  of  any  kind  are  more  important 
than  the  steps  taken  in  arranging  material.     The 
organization  of  the  discussion  plays  a  great  part 
in  determining  the  ease  with  which  the  speaker  will 
present  his  discussion  and  the  ease  with  which  the 
audience  will   understand   and  accept   it.     In   this 
chapter  we  are  to  consider  the  principles  and  rules 
which  have  to  do  with  organizing  and  outlining  of 
cases. 

B.  Three  great  rhetorical  principles  broadly  con- 
trol all  composition.     These  great  principles,  which 
must  be  observed  in  order  to  have  effective  com- 

117 


ii8  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

position  in  any  field,  are  of  particular  importance 
in  the  field  of  debate  and  public  discussion.  It  is 
only  by  following  them  with  the  greatest  care  that 
we  can  have  that  kind  of  composition  which  is 
most  effective  for  oral  presentation.  It  should  be 
remarked  in  considering  plans  of  organization  and 
details  of  arrangement  for  all  oral  work  that  unless 
a  sentence  when  uttered  is  instantly  intelligible  to 
the  audience,  the  proper  effect  is  in  a  large  part 
lost.  The  audience  cannot  turn  back  and  look  up 
what  was  meant.  They  cannot  reread  the  sentence 
or  the  paragraph.  They  cannot  turn  to  a  diction- 
ary to  find  the  meaning  of  the  words.  They  can- 
not look  at  an  outline  at  the  head  of  the  chapter 
or  at  a  table  of  contents  in  the  front  of  the  book 
to  find  out  just  where  the  speaker  is  at  a  given 
time.  In  other  words,  if  the  speaker  does  not 
by  orderly  arrangement  and  good  oral  composition 
keep  his  hearers  up  with  him  at  the  proper  point 
in  the  case,  and  so  express  his  thought  as  to  be 
instantly  intelligible,  he  is  certainly  losing  a  large 
part  of  the  effect  which  might  be  gained.  Efficient 
oral  discussion  of  any  kind  is  impossible  without 
compliance  with  the  following  three  principles. 

i.  Unity.  The  principle  of  unity  is  observed 
when  the  whole  composition  is  one,  when  it  works 
toward  a  single  conclusion, —  a  unified  and  not  a 
diversified  impression.  In  all  argumentative  work 
the  principle  of  unity  is  observed  when  we  have 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  119 

for  discussion  a  single  proposition  properly 
analyzed,  so  that  real  issues  are  discovered,  and  then 
a  case  built  up  on  a  partition  which  deals  with 
necessary  issues,  and  so  establishes  or  overthrows 
the  proposition.  If  each  smaller  point  properly 
relates  to  the  larger  point  under  which  it  stands, 
and  the  larger  points  are  properly  related  to  still 
bigger  ones,  and  so  on  up  until  we  have  all  points 
regularly  connected  to  the  proposition  itself,  then 
we  have  unity  in  our  discussion.  No  devise  is 
better  than  a  well-drawn  brief  for  determining  the 
unity  of  any 'case,  and  determining  whether  or  not 
any  given  piece  of  evidence  or  any  given  argument 
properly  belongs  to  such  case.  When  a  brief  (as 
discussed  later  in  this  chapter)  is  carefully  pre- 
pared for  any  case,  such  a  case  will  necessarily  be 
unified.  It  is  impossible  to  build  up  a  good  brief 
on  the  proposition  that  is  not  a  unit.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  work  into  a  good  brief  material  which  vio- 
lates the  unity  of  the  discussion.  Outlines  may 
well  violate  unity,  but  if  the  outline  for  any  given 
discussion  or  debate  is  taken  out  of  a  properly 
drawn  brief,  unity  is  practically  assured.  There- 
fore every  important  argumentative  effort,  whether 
part  of  a  formal  debate  or  part  of  an  informal  dis- 
cussion, should  be  based  upon  a  carefully  drawn 
brief  of  the  proposition  dealt  with. 

2.  Coherence.     The    principle    of    coherence    is 
obeyed  when  the  materials  used  are  arranged  in  the 


120  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

proper  order,  or  presented  one  after  another  in 
the  correct  sequence,  and  also  properly  connected 
one  to  the  other.  In  other  words,  coherence  is  a 
principle  which  demands  proper  order  and  proper 
connection.  It  has  been  said  somewhere  in  dis- 
cussing this  principle  that  not  only  must  'the  horse 
be  before  the  cart,  but  he  must  be  hitched  to  the 
cart  if  the  whole  outfit  is  to  be  serviceable.  Plac- 
ing the  horse  before  the  cart  is  only  one  half  of 
coherence;  the  other  half  is  hitching  horse  and  cart 
together.  Again,  this  principle  is  of  particular  im- 
portance in  all  oral  work.  Unless  the  minds  of 
the  hearers  can  be  moved  easily  along  from  point 
to  point,  the  speaker  will  lose  attention  and  in- 
terest, and  will  become  so  disconnected  from  mem- 
bers of  his  audience  that  conviction  and  persua- 
sion will  be  impossible.  It  is  only  when  a  speaker 
keeps  an  audience  moving  along  through  his  case 
with  him,  that  he  has  an  opportunity  to  affect  deeply 
either  their  thoughts  or  feelings.  When  the  con- 
nection between  point  and  point  is  poorly  made, 
when  the  jars  are  severe,  listeners  will  fall  away. 
They  will  cease  to  follow  a  broken,  jolting,  dis- 
connected argument.  So  the  student  working  in 
oral  composition  of  any  kind  should  be  particularly 
careful  that  transitions  are  made  smoothly  from 
point  to  point  as  well  as  that  points  are  taken  up  in 
the  proper  sequence.  All  that  is  done  for  the  eye 
on  the  printed  page  by  varying  margins,  changes  in 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  121 

type,  paragraphing,  headlining,  use  of  symbols,  etc., 
must  usually  be  done  in  public  speaking  by  word  of 
mouth.  Instead  of  simply  starting  a  new  para- 
graph, as  one  might  do  in  a  printed  manuscript,  it 
is  often  necessary  to  tell  your  audience  what  you 
are  doing  in  so  many  words :  "  So  much  for  that 
phase  of  the  question.  Now  let  us  turn  to  a  con- 
sideration, etc."  In  this  way  you  can  bring  your 
audience  over  from  one  division  to  another  without 
confusion.  Very  often  the  transition  may  be  made 
with  a  single  word  or  phrase  instead  of  an  elaborate 
sentence.  Such  expressions  as  "  however,"  "  more- 
over/' "  on  the  contrary,"  "  on  the  other  hand,"  "  in 
the  next  place,"  "  secondly,"  etc.,  are  all  transitional 
expression,  the  frequent  use  of  which  are  helpful 
to  hearers  in  following  the  proper  connection  be- 
tween point  and  point  in  your  case  as  it  unfolds 
before  them. 

3.  Emphasis.  The  principle  of  '  emphasis  is 
closely  related  to  that  of  coherence.  Emphasis 
means  bringing  more  strongly  to  the  attention  of 
your  audience  those  parts  of  your  case  which  you 
wish  particularly  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  your 
hearers.  There  are  always  certain  parts  of  a  case 
which  the  speaker  wishes  to  make  stand  out  over 
other  parts  —  in  other  words,  which  he  wishes  to 
emphasize.  The  question  is,  How  shall  that  be 
done  ?  Of  course  there  are  many  ways.  A  speaker 
may  get  emphasis  by  various  changes  in  delivery. 


122  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

But  with  that  we  are  not  concerned  now.  It  is 
with  emphasis  in  composition  that  we  are  dealing 
here.  Furthermore,  with  that  kind  of  emphasis 
which  grows  from  the  use  of  the  proper  diction, 
from  the  choice  of  the  right  and  emphatic  words, 
which,  by  the  way,  is  a  matter  which  should  be 
kept  carefully  in  mind  by  students  and  teachers,  we 
are  not  concerned  here.  As  far  as  arrangement  is 
concerned,  methods  of  emphasis- might  be  called  the 
methods  of  place  and  space. 

a.  Place  emphasis  means  simply  placing  that 
which  you  wish  to  emphasize  in  an  emphatic  posi- 
tion. The  emphatic  places  are  the  beginning  and 
the  end  of  a  discussion  or  speech,  or  of  an  impor- 
tant subdivision  of  a  discussion  or  speech.  When 
a  speaker  first  takes  the  platform  the  audience  gives 
him,  as  a  usual  thing,  almost  perfect  attention. 
Anything  that  he  says  in  the  first  few  sentences  of 
his  speech  will  be  received  with  keener  attention 
than  what  he  says  later.  A  recognition  of  this 
elementary  fact  ought  to  be  necessary  to  cause  pub- 
lic speakers  to  say  something  important  concern- 
ing the  subject  they  have  to  discuss  in  the  first 
few  minutes  they  are  on  the  platform,  rather  than 
to  throw  away  this  opportunity  with  trivial  re- 
marks or  supposed  funny  stories  which  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  proposition  under  discussion. 
Such  observance  of  the  principle  of  place  emphasis 
would  greatly  improve  a  large  part  of  public  speak- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  123 

ing.  The  end  of  a  speech,  of  course,  is  also  a  very 
emphatic  place.  When  an  audience  realizes  that  a 
speaker  is  about  to  close,  they  again  give  him, 
spontaneously,  almost  perfect  attention.  There- 
fore what  he  says  in  the  end  has  an  opportunity 
to  sink  more  deeply  into  the  minds  of  his  hearers. 
Furthermore,  since  nothing  conies  after  it,  since  it 
is  the  last  thing  in  the  speech,  his  audience  goes 
away  with  this  final  word  in  mind.  Therefore,  on 
the  whole,  that  which  is  said  at  the  beginning  and 
that  which  is  said  at  the  end  will,  other  things  be- 
ing equal,  make  a  deeper  impression  than  that  which 
is  said  through  the  middle  of  a  speech.  Of  course 
it  is  true  that  the  significance  of  the  material  itself, 
or  the  vividness  of  its  presentation,  even  in  the  mid- 
dle of  a  speech,  may  make  material  presented  at  that 
point  stand  out  over  all  the  rest  of  the  discussion, 
but,  other  things  being  equal,  that  which  is  pre- 
sented first  and  last  will  make  the  deepest  impres- 
sion. 

b.  Space  emphasis  means  simply  that  we  give 
more  space  in  the  manuscript,  more  time  in  the 
speech,  to  those  things  which  we  wish  to  emphasize. 
If  you  have  two  points  you  wish  to  present,  and 
wish  to  emphasize  one  very  much  more  than  the 
other,  you  can  usually  do  this  by  spending  fifteen 
minutes  in  discussing  one,  and  five  minutes  in  dis- 
cussing the  other.  A  combination  of  these  two  ele- 
mentary methods  of  emphasis,  along  with  careful 


124  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

attention  to  proper  diction  and  effective  delivery, 
ought  to  enable  any  speaker  to  make  emphatic  those 
parts  of  the  speech  by  which  he  wishes  his  audience 
to  be  most  deeply  impressed. 

C.  Brief  and  outline.  Questions  of  detail  in  ar- 
rangement, the  matter  of  so  organizing  the  entire 
debate  or  discussion  as  to  live  up  to  the  require- 
ments of  these  fundamental  principles  will  be  con- 
sidered under  the  headings  of  brief  and  outline. 
There  is  a  difference  between  a  brief  and  an  outline, 
properly  speaking,  which  is  not  always  understood, 
but  which  should  be  kept  carefully  in  mind  in  the 
discussion  of  these  two  steps  in  preparation. 

a.  A  brief  is  a  completely  finished  statement  on 
paper  of  all  the  evidence  and  all  the  argument, 
on  a  given  side  of  a  given  case,  arranged  in  logical 
order.  It  is  not  a  preliminary  outline  on  which  to 
base  a  speech.  It  is  a  classified,  organized,  store- 
house of  fact  and  inference  which  may  be  drawn 
upon  for  the  making  of  any  number  of  speeches. 
A  brief  is  a  finished  article.  It  is  a  complete,  im- 
personal statement  of  evidence  and  argument  which 
may  be  presented  for  a  decision  of  the  case  whenever 
we  have  a  tribunal  competent  to,  and  ready  to,  decide 
the  question  on  cold  fact  and  logical  inference. 
Even  though  the  brief  may  not  be  intended  for  such 
final  use,  a  complete  logical  arrangement  of  all  the 
fact  and  inference  on  a  given  side  of  a  given  propo- 
sition ought  to  be  made  out  for  the  purpose  of  al- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  125 

lowing  the  worker,  the  debater,  the  discusser,  to 
gain  a  clear  understanding  of  the  material  to  be 
dealt  with.  There  is  no  other  possible  way  of  get- 
ting such  a  thorough  grasp,  such  a  complete  un- 
derstanding, of  a  discussion  as  by  making  a  per- 
fect brief  of  it.  After  a  perfect  brief  is  made,  then 
an  outline  of  any  speech  or  any  discussion  may 
be  made  up  by  choosing  whatever  parts  of  the  brief 
seem  best  for  the  particular  occasion  in  mind. 

b.  An  outline  should  always  be  arranged  with  the 
particular  audience  in  mind,  and  should  be  adapted 
to  the  audience  and  the  occasion.  The  brief  should 
be  prepared  without  reference  to  any  audience  or 
any  occasion.  It  should  be  a  brief  of  the  case  as 
a  case.  From  such  a  brief  of  the  case  a  number 
of  different  outlines  might  be  drawn  presenting 
various  phases  of  the  discussion  to  a  number  of  dif- 
ferent audiences.  For  instance,  if  you  are  going 
to  work  on  the  proposition  that  the  town  of  X 
should  build  a  new  high  school,  you  should  prepare 
a  brief  on  your  side  of  the  case  which  should  con- 
tain a  proper  organization  of  all  relevant  and  im- 
portant fact,  arranged  in  a  series  of  logical  argu- 
ments, to  make  a  complete  presentation  of  the  whole 
of  your  side  of  the  case  to  a  judge  or  referee  who 
wishes  to  go  over  the  entire  proposition  in  all  its 
phases.  Suppose  after  preparing  such  a  brief  you 
are  called  upon  to  make  four  different  speeches 
advocating  the  building  of  this  high  school.  Let 


126  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

us  say  that  you  are  engaged  to  present  the  subject 
four  times  as  follows :     i .  A  one-hour  speech  to 
a   public   mass-meeting   of   citizens   in   town   hall. 
Audience,  1200  men,  women,  and  children.     2.  A 
twenty-minute  speech  at  a  business  meeting  of  the 
board  of  commerce  or  other  business  men's  asso- 
ciation  in  the  town.     Audience,   35   business   and 
professional  men.     3.  A  fifteen-minute  talk  to  the 
200  pupils  of  high  school  age  in  the  town,  to  be 
presented  at  a  meeting  called  on  the  morning  of 
commencement-day  in  June.     4.  A  forty-five-min- 
nte  talk  before  a  women's  literary  club  at  an  after- 
noon gathering  in  a  private  house.     Audience,  50 
women.     A   consideration  of  the  type  of   speech 
that  should  be  planned  for  each  of  these  four  dif- 
ferent occasions  ought  to  bring  out  the  proper  dif- 
ferences between  a  brief  and  an  outline.     There 
should  be  one  brief  of  the  case,  carefully  prepared, 
absolutely  complete,  perfect  in  arrangement,  which 
should  be  at  the  basis  of  all  these  speeches.     From 
that  brief,  the  speaker  should  draw  out   for  any 
particular  speech  those  phases  of  the  case  which 
he  wishes  to  present  to  the  particular  audience  in 
mind.     Different  material  will  be  chosen  for  differ- 
ent audiences   such  as  we  have  mentioned.     The 
same  idea  or  point  will  often  be  presented  differ- 
ently to  two  different  audiences.     A  series  of  points 
may  be  presented  in  different  order  to  two  different 
audiences.     In  other  words,  to  make  a  good  out- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  127 

line  after  we  have  made  a  good  brief,  we  consider 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  speech  which  is  to  be 
given,  and  then  take  from  our  brief  those  parts 
which  will  best  serve  for  this  speech,  and  arrange 
them  in  the  most  effective  order  possible  consider- 
ing at  every  point  the  audience  and  the  occasion 
which  we  have  to  meet. 

D.  Rules  for  brief  drawing.  The  following 
seventeen  rules  for  brief  drawing  are  presented 
here  in  the  belief  that  they  may  be  easily  under- 
stood and  followed  even  by  beginners  in  argumen- 
tation. There  has  been  no  attempt  made  to  con- 
dense and  combine  certain  rules  here  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  it  appear  that  there  are  less  than 
there  really  are.  A  perfect  brief  conforms  to  these 
seventeen  rules.  By  making  each  one  a  separate 
rule,  we  gain  accuracy  and  clearness.  So  we  ask 
that  each  student  consider  each  rule  on  its  merits, 
and  not  be  led  to  think  because  there  are  seventeen 
rules,  that  a  brief  must  be  fearfully  and  wonder- 
fully made.  Many  of  these  rules  may  state  almost 
self-evident  truths,  but  for  completeness'  sake,  every- 
thing is  given  here  in  full.  Each  of  these  rules 
should  be  memorized  and  understood. 

GENERAL  RULES 

i.  The  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts, 
marked,  respectively,  introduction,  discussion,  and 
conclusion. 


128  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

2.  The  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged 
in  the  form  of  headings  and  subheadings. 

3.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should  be  in 
the  form  of  a  complete  statement. 

4.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should  con- 
tain but  a  single  statement.     (Rare  exceptions  may 
be  made  to  this  in  the  case  of  literal  quotations  cov- 
ering more  than  a  single  statement.) 

5.  Every  coordinate  series  of  statements  should 
be  arranged  in  order  of  climax,  unless  this  violates 
time  order  in  expository  matter  or  logical  order 
in  argumentative  matter." 

6.  The  relation  between  the  headings  and  sub- 
headings should  be  indicated  by  means  of  margins, 
and  letters,  numbers,  or  other  symbols. 

7.  No  heading  or  subheading  should  be  marked 
with  more  than  one  symbol. 

8.  All   references  and   sources  of   information 
should  be  accurately  stated  in  the  brief,  on  the  same 
page  on  which  the  information  is  given. 

RULES  FOR  INTRODUCTION 

9.  The  first  part  of  the  introduction  should  con- 
tain all  the  information  necessary   for  an  under- 
standing of  the  discussion  —  history,  definition,  ex- 
planations, admissions,  etc. 

10.  The  last  part  of  the  introduction  should  con- 
tain a  statement  of  the  issues  and  of  the  parti- 
tion. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  129 

11.  The  introduction  should  contain  only  state- 
ments the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  both  sides. 

i 

RULES  FOR  DISCUSSION 

12.  The  discussion  should  contain  all  evidence 
and  argument  to  be  used  on  the  given  side  of  the 
given  proposition. 

13.  In  the  discussion,  each  main  heading  should 
read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  prop- 
osition. 

14.  Each  subheading,  or  series  of  coordinate  sub- 
headings, should  read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of 
the  heading  above  it. 

15.  Objections  to  be  refuted  should  be  dealt  with 
as  they  arise. 

1 6.  In  phrasing  refutation  the  heading  should 
state  clearly  the  argument  to  be  answered,  and  the 
character  of  the  answer  to  be  made. 

RULE  FOR  CONCLUSION 

17.  The  conclusion  should  contain  a  summary  of 
the  essential  points  of  the  proof. 

Now  let  us  consider  each  one  of  these  rules  very 
briefly.  The  complete  briefs  published  in  the  Ap- 
pendix will  illustrate  fully  every  principle  here  dealt 
with. 

Rule  i.  The  brief  should  be  divided  into  three 
parts,  marked  respectively,  introduction,  discus- 


130  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

sion,  and  conclusion.  It  is  not  only  important  that 
we  have  an  introduction,  a  discussion,  and  a  con- 
clusion, but  the  brief  should  be  marked  as  divided 
in  these  three  parts,  so  that  anyone  reading  the 
brief  may  know  exactly  where  the  introduction  ends 
and  the  discussion  begins.  The  introduction,  the 
discussion,  and  the  conclusion  are  three  separate 
problems,  all  working  together,  but  each  complete 
in  itself.  The  principle  to  be  observed  in  the  dif- 
ferent parts  are  not  always  alike,  so  that  we  could 
conceive  of  these  as  three  parts  which  may  be  quite 
separate,  and  we  should  divide  them  off  and  label 
each  distinctly. 

Rule  2.  The  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged 
in  the  form  of  headings  and  subheadings.  By 
means  of  headings  and  subheadings  we  may  group 
ideas  which  go  together.  Anyone  who  has  had  any 
experience  whatever  in  making  briefs  or  outlines, 
will  know  that  by  putting  down  a  main  heading 
and  running  a  series  of  subheads  under  it,  we  can 
get  a  grouping  which  will  make  clear  at  once  to 
the  eye,  points  in  relation  and  relative  importance 
which  could  not  be  made  clear  so  effectively  by  any 
other  method. 

Rule  3.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should  be 
in  the  form  of  a  complete  statement.  In  reading  a 
brief  it  is  necessary  that  we  follow  accurately  the 
exact  intention  of  the  writer  of  the  brief.  A  mere 
topic  which  is  not  a  complete  sentence  might  do 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  131 

very  well  for  the  author  of  the  brief  as  a  guide  in 
writing  a  manuscript  or  making  a  speech,  but  the 
brief  should  be  so  prepared  that  anyone  referring 
to  it  at  any  time  can  get  from  it  the  precise  mean- 
ing the  writer  of  the  brief  had  in  mind  in  preparing 
each  part  in  it.  Such  clearness  can  only  be  accom- 
plished by  a  rigid  observance  of  the  rule  that  each 
heading  and  subheading  should  be  a  complete  state- 
ment. There  is  no  place  whatever  in  a  well-drawn 
brief  for  mere  topics  and  expressions  which  are  not 
full  sentences. 

Rule  4.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should 
contain  but  a  single  statement.  (Rare  exceptions 
may  be  made  to  this  in  the  case  of  literal  quotations 
covering  more  than  a  single  statement.)  Clarity  of 
thought  presupposes  unity  of  thought.  If  you  try 
to  make  a  series  of  short  headings  and  subheadings 
out  of  compound  statements,  you  will  see  in  a  mo- 
ment that  great  confusion  results.  It  is  only  by 
having  each  idea  stated  singly  that  we  can  accurately 
follow  through  a  complete  and  clear-cut  line  of 
reasoning.  If  hazy  paragraphs  and  long  quota- 
tions are  boiled  down  to  a  single  point,  or  to  a 
series  of  single  statements  properly  arranged,  we 
will  then  have  material  so  presented  as  to  give  us 
the  vital  thought  with  the  least  possible  cost  of  study 
and  attention.  Inserting  whole  blocks  of  undigested 
quotations  of  more  than  a  single  sentence  should 
not  be  allowed,  though  occasionally  when  the  exact 


132  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

words  that  some  authority  has  used  are  of  impor- 
tance, this  rule  may  be  relaxed  sufficiently  to  allow 
the  insertion  of  a  quotation  of  more  than  a  single 
sentence.  This,  however,  should  be  the  only  ex- 
ception to  this  rule. 

Rule  5.  Every  coordinate  series  of  statements 
should  be  arranged  in  order  of  climax,  unless  this 
violates  time  order  in  expository  matter  or  logical 
order  in  argumentative  matter.  This  rule  is  very 
simple  and  practically  self-evident.  In  expository 
matter,  of  course,  it  is  usually  clearest  and  best  to 
follow  time  order.  In  stating  a  series  of  reasons, 
we  should  follow  the  logical  order;  that  is,  what- 
ever order  works  through  most  easily  from  cause 
to  effect  or  in  other  logical  line  of  development. 
If  we  are  simply  citing  a  series  of  instances,  or  giv- 
ing a  list  of  cases,  or  tables  of  statistics,  or  other  co- 
ordinate series  in  which  order  is  not  dictated  by  one 
of  the  considerations  just  mentioned,  we  should 
arrange  such  a  series  in  the  order  of  climax  —  that 
is,  beginning  with  the  weakest  item,  we  should  work 
through  gradually  to  the  strongest  item  at  the  end. 

Rule  6.  The  relation  between  the  headings  and 
subheadings  should  be  indicated  by  means  of  mar- 
gins, and  letters,  numbers,  or  other  symbols.  The 
relations  between  various  items  in  a  brief  should 
be  made  clear  in  two  ways.  First,  by  symbols, 
which  should  be  commonly  in  the  following  order: 
Roman  numerals,  capital  letters,  arabic  numerals, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  133 

arabic  letters,  and  then  repeating  the  same  series  in 
parentheses,  as  follows : 

I 

A 

i 

a. , 

(I) 

(A) 

(i) 

II 

A 

i 

In  the  second  place,  margins  should  be  used  to 
make  the  relation  clear.  All  the  roman  numerals 
should  stand  in  a  line  one  above  another;  all  the 
capital  letters  the  same;  all  the  arabic  numerals 
the  same;  etc.  No  sentence  should  ever  be  brought 
back  to  the  left  under  the  symbol  which  marks  its 
beginning.  In  other  words,  a  margin  should  al- 
ways be  left  clear  and  clean  in  as  far  as  the  symbol 
at  the  beginning  of  each  sentence,  and  the  wider 
the  margin  the  lower  the  order  of  points  being  dealt 
with.  The  following  examples  will  illustrate  cor- 
rect and  incorrect  margins : 

(Correct) 

IV.    The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable  for  its 
effect  on  the  free  labor  of  the  State,  because, 
A.  The   argument  that  the  competition  of  con- 
vict labor  with  free  labor  under  the  contract 


134  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

system  is  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the 
State  is  weak,  for, 

1.  The   competition   must   exist   under   any 
system  of  employment,  because, 

a.  The  products  of  the  convict  must  be 
sold  in  the  market. 

2.  The  competition   is  more   serious  under 
the  public-account  system,  for, 

a.  Goods  can  be  sold  below  the  market 
price  in  competition,  because, 

(I)  The  State  cannot  be  forced 
into  bankruptcy. 

'(II)  The  whole  cost  of  produc- 
tion is  the  cost  of  the  ma- 
terial. 

b.  The  tendency  is  to  centralize  manu- 
factures on  a  few  lines  of  produc- 
tion,  for, 

(I)  It  is  impossible  to  manage 
many  different  lines  of 
manufacturing. 

c.  The  United  States  Industrial  Com- 
mission  says,   "  It  has   been  shown 
by  numerous  investigations  that  un- 
der the  public-account  system  there 
is  greater  competition  with  the  prod- 
ucts of  free  labor  than  under  any 
other." 

3.  The  competition  is  at  least  no  less  harm- 
ful under  the  piece-price  system,  because, 

(Incorrect) 

IV.    The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable  for  its 
effect  on  the  free  labor  of  the  State,  because, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  135 

A.  The  argument  that  the  competition  of  convict 
labor  with  free  labor  under  the  contract  system  is  detri- 
mental to  the  welfare  of  the  State  is  weak,  for, 

1.  The    competition   must   exist   under    any 
system  of  employment,   because, 

a.  The  products  of  the  convict  must  be 
sold  in  the  market. 

2.  The  competition  is  more  serious  under  the 
public-account  system,  for, 

a.  Goods  can  be  sold  below  the  market 
price  in  competition,  because, 

(I)  The    State   cannot   be    forced 
into  bankruptcy. 

(II)  The    whole    cost    of    produc- 
tion is  the  cost  of  the  material. 

b.  The  tendency  is  to  centralize  manu- 
factures on  a  few  lines  of  production,  for, 

(I)   It    is    impossible    to    manage 
many  different  lines  of  manufacturing, 

c.  The   United    States   Industrial   Com- 
mission says,  "  It  has  been  shown  by  numerous  investiga- 
tions that  under  the  public-account  system  there  is  greater 
competition  with  the  products  of  free  labor  than  under 
any  other." 

3.  The  competition  is  at  least  no  less  harm- 
ful under  the  piece-price  system,  because, 

Rule  7.  No  heading  or,  subheading  should  be 
marked  with  more  than  one  symbol.  When  a 
statement  is  given  with  two  symbols  standing  at  its 
head,  the  defect  is  usually  that  the  student  has 
omitted  a  large  grouping  statement  —  the  state- 
ment which  gives  unity  to  a  series  of  smaller  state- 


136  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ments.     For  instance,  suppose  you  find  in  a  brief 
the  following  arrangement : 


C.     i. 

2. 

3- 


The  mistake  here  has  been  that  the  proper  state- 
ment for  which  C  should  stand  and  which  unifies 
and  brings  together  these  three  smaller  statements 
and  connects  them  to  the  roman  numeral  point  to 
which  C  is  a  substatement,  has  usually  been  omitted. 
The  following  should  be  the  arrangement: 


C.     ... 

i. 

2. 

3- 


There  is  never  a  place  in  a  well-drawn  brief  where 
a  single  statement  requires  two  symbols.  Either 
the  points  here  about  are  badly  coordinated  or  else 
an  important  statement  has  been  omitted. 

Rule  8.  All  references  and  sources  of  informa- 
tion should  be  accurately  stated  in  the  brief,  on  the 
same  page  on  which  the  information  is  given.  Ex- 
act references, —  volume,  number,  page,  etc., —  be- 
long in  footnotes  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  or  on  the 
left  hand  margin  opposite  the  point  referred  to,  or 
in  parentheses  in  the  body  of  the  brief  immediately 
following  or  under  the  point  referred  to  in  each 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  137 

case.  On  the  whole,  probably  this  last  method  is 
best.  If  this  is  used,  we  always  have  the  reference 
precisely  where  it  is  wanted,  immediately  under  the 
eye  as  the  fact  is  read.  The  fact  and  the  source 
from  which  it  is  drawn  are  kept  continually  to- 
gether. If,  however,  the  same  source  is  going  to  be 
mentioned  for  a  great  many  facts  on  a  given  page, 
that  source  would  perhaps  better  be  given  in  a  note 
on  the  left  margin  with  the  statement  that  it  is  the 
common  source  of  all  the  fact  used  on  that  page, 
or  under  certain  points  which  are  indicated. 

Rule  9.  The  first  part  of  the  introduction  should 
contain  all  the  information  necessary  for  an  under- 
standing of  the  discussion  —  history,  definition,  ex- 
planations, admissions,  etc.  This  is  simply  a  re- 
statement of  the  purpose  of  the  introduction  itself. 
The  introduction  should  pave  the  way  for  the  dis- 
cussion. It  should  present  to  the  reader  the  un- 
biased information,  the  immediate  matters  of  fact, 
the  definitions  and  explanations  which  will  make 
the  discussion  clear. 

Rule  10.  The  last  part  of  the  introduction  should 
contain  a  statement  of  the  issues  and  of  the  parti- 
tion. The  issues  and  the  partition  should,  of  course, 
come  immediately  after  explanations  and  definitions, 
and  immediately  before  the  discussion.  The  parti- 
tion is  the  connecting  link  between  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  proposition  and  the  discussion  itself. 
The  issues  and  partitions  are  usually  stated  in  two 


138  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

separate  sections  of  the  brief,  and  make  up  the  last 
two  main  points  in  the  introduction. 

Rule  ii.  The  introduction  should  contain  only 
statements  the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  both 
sides.  This  rule  simply  enforces  the  impartiality 
of  the  introduction.  All  arguments  should  be  put 
in  the  discussion  itself.  The  statement  of  issues 
and  partition  does  not  violate  this  rule,  because  the 
partition  simply  states  that  the  affirmative  or  nega- 
tive expect  to,  or  hope  to,  establish  the  following 
points,  and  does  not  state  the  points  categorically 
to  be  accepted  on  the  mere  statement  given.  Stat- 
ing issues  and  partition  is  no  violation  of  the  rule 
that  the  introduction  should  contain  only  admitted 
matter. 

Rule  12.  The  discussion  should  contain  all  evi- 
dence and  argument  to  be  used  on  the  given  side 
of  the  given  proposition.  This  is  the  obverse  of 
the  rule  just  given.  It  simply  means  that  the  argu- 
ment should  all  come  in  the  discussion,  should  be 
kept  out  of  the  introduction,  and  should  be  com- 
pleted and  done  with  before  the  conclusion  is  writ- 
ten. 

Rule  13.  In  the  discussion,  each  main  heading 
should  read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  proposition.  If  your  brief  is  on  the  affirmative 
side,  each  main  heading  should  read  directly  as  a 
reason  for  adopting  the  resolution.  If  your  brief 
is  a  negative  brief,  each  main  heading  should  be 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  139 

phrased  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to  adopt,  or  voting 
against,  the  resolution.  So  on  the  affirmative  the 
main  headings  (the  points  in  partition)  can  be  con- 
nected directly  to  the  proposition  by  the  word  "  be- 
cause," as:  Resolved:  that  the  city  of  Y  should 
install  a  water  system  using  the  water  of  Lake  M. 
(because) 

I.  The  present  supply  is  inadequate. 

II.  The  water  of  Lake  M.  is  pure. 

III.  The  supply  is  ample. 

IV.  It  can  be  cheaply  obtained. 

On  the  negative  the  main  headings  should  read  as 
reasons  for  the  resolution  with  "  not  "  inserted,  as : 
Resolved:  that  the  city  of  Y  should  not  install  a 
water  system  using  the  water  of  Lake  M.  (because) 

I.     The  present  supply  is  adequate. 
II.     The  water  of  Lake  M.  is  impure. 
III.     The  expert  on  whom  the  affirmative  relies 
in  their  contention  that  this  water  should 
be  used  is  untrustworthy. 

Rule  14.  Each  subheading,  or  series  of  co- 
ordinate subheadings,  should  read  as  a  reason  for 
the  truth  of  the  heading  above  it.  This  is  a  carry- 
ing on  of  Rule  13  by  simply  applying  the  same 
principle  exactly  to  the  smaller  subdivisions  of  the 
discussion.  This  rule  may  be  very  simply  lived  up 
to  by  writing  into  the  brief  at  all  connecting  points 


140  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  connecting  word  "  because."  In  the  discus- 
sion of  a  well-drawn  brief,  it  is  always  possible  to 
connect  any  statement  to  the  statement  under  which 
it  stands  with  the  word  "  because."  In  other  words, 
we  should  be  able  to  read  "  III,"  for  instance,  and 
then  adding  "  because  "  be  able  to  read  all  the  capital 
letter  partitions  which  stand  under  it.  We  should 
be  able  to  read  at  any  point  "  B,"  for  instance,  and 
connecting  with  "  because  "  be  able  to  read  all  the 
arabic  numeral  points  which  stand  under  it,  and  so 
on  through  the  entire  brief.  Thus : 

III. ,  because 

A 

B ., ,  because 

i ,  because 

a 

2 , ,  because 

a 

Sometimes  in  the  discussion  two  short  points  have 
to  be  taken  together  in  order  to  make  the  reason 
for  the  point  under  which  they  stand.  For  in- 
stance, if  under  "  I  "  we  have  to  take  two  facts  in 
conjunction  to  make  a  reason,  the  two  points  should 
be  labelled  A1  and  A2;  if  three  points,  A1,  A2,  and 
A3,  and  they  should  be  connected  to  each  other  by 
the  word  "  and,"  as : 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  141 

I ,  because 

A1 and 

A2 

B ......  because 

i 

21 ,  and 

22 ,  and 

23 

Rule  15.  Objections  to  be  refuted  should  be 
dealt  with  as  they  arise.  It  is  always  possible  to 
introduce  into  a  well-drawn  brief  any  refutation 
that  fits  at  any  point.  If  some  point  of  objection 
is  likely  to  arise  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  of  the 
brief  at  a  given  point,  that  should  be  anticipated 
and  refuted  in  the  brief  itself.  This  can  always  be 
done  by  some  such  phraseology  as  the  following: 
''  The  contention  that  so  and  so  is  true  is  unfounded, 
because/'  and  continue  the  refutation,  thus  weaving 
it  into  the  regular  form  of  the  brief  itself. 

Rule  1 6.  In  phrasing  refutation  the  heading 
should  state  clearly  the  argument  to  be  answered, 
and  the  character  of  the  answer  to  be  given.  This 
rule  should  be  observed  with  great  caution  in  deal- 
ing with  refutation.  Refutation  which  is  not  ac- 
curately aimed  at  some  definite  contention  of  the 
other  side  is  usually  a  waste  of  time.  Let  anyone 
who  refers  to  your  brief  see  at  once  precisely  what 
each  piece  of  refutation  is  intended  to  answer.  Let 


142  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

him  see,  in  the  second  place,  what  the  character  of 
the  answer  is.  What  is  your  charge  against  the 
contention  of  the  other  side?  —  that  it  is  false?  or 
weak?  or  irrelevant?  or  ambiguous?  or  untrust- 
worthy for  some  other  reason?  Characterize  ac- 
curately your  objection  to  it,  and  put  that  character- 
ization into  the  phraseology  which  you  use  in  in- 
troducing your  refutation. 

Rule  17.  The  conclusion  should  contain  a  sum- 
mary of  the  essential  points  of  the  proof.  The  writ- 
ing of  the  conclusion  of  a  brief  is  a  very  simple 
work.  The  main  point  and  partitions  should  al- 
ways be  reproduced  in  the  conclusion,  and  sometimes 
even  the  next  order,  the  capital  letter  points,  should 
also  be  repeated,  unless  this  would  make  the  brief 
too  long.  Reference  to  the  briefs  printed  in  the  Ap- 
pendix will  show  the  correct  form  for  a  conclusion 
to  a  brief. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Write  an  introduction  to  a  brief  on  some  proposi- 
tion dealing  with  a  problem  in  your  school. 

2.  Write  discussion  and  conclusion  to  brief  mentioned 
in  i. 

3.  Make  detailed  outlines  for  three  different  speeches 
discussing  the  above  mentioned  proposition  before  three 
diffrent  kinds  of  audiences. 

4.  Brief  the  material  in  Appendix  D.  i. 
,5.  Brief  the  material  in  Appendix  D.  2. 

6.  Brief  the  material  in  Appendix  D.  3. 

7.  Brief  the  material  in  Appendix  D.  4. 

8.  Make  outlines  of  three  different  short  speeches  based 
on  brief  for  exercise  D.  3. 


CHAPTER  IX 

COMPOSITION 

A.  Brief,  outline,  and  speech. 

B.  Extemporaneous  composition. 

C.  Four  qualities. 

1.  Brevity. 

2.  Simplicity. 

3.  Vividness. 

4.  Variety. 

D.  The  introduction. 

1.  The  first  affirmative. 

2.  The  first  negative. 

E.  The  discussion. 

F.  The  conclusion. 

i.  Balanced  summary. 

G.  Rebuttal  speeches. 

A.  Brief,  outline,  and  speech.  The  relation  of 
the  speech  to  the  brief  and  outline  has  already  been 
touched  upon  in  Chapter  VIII.  Here  at  the  be- 
ginning of  our  consideration  of  the  preparation  of 
speeches  in  either  a  formal  debate  or  a  discussion, 
we  ought  again  to  mention  this  relation.  The  brief, 
as  we  have  said,  should  contain  an  impersonal  state- 
ment of  the  facts  and  inferences  logically  admissible 
on  a  given  side  of  a  given  proposition.  When  the 
problem  of  making  a  specific  speech  arises,  an  out- 
line should  be  drawn  from  the  brief,  making  use  of 
whatever  materials  in  the  brief  seem  best  suited  for 

143 


144  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  occasion  in  hand,  and  arranging  these  materials 
in  the  proper  order  to  accomplish  best  the  exact  pur- 
pose to  be  aimed  at  in  the  speech.  In  preparation 
for  speeches  in  a  debate  or  a  discussion  contest,  sub- 
stantially the  same  steps  should  be  taken.  How- 
ever, if  the  preparation  consists  in  part  of  a  series 
of  practice  debates  or  discussions  taking  place  at 
intervals  through  a  considerable  period  of  time, 
the  brief  and  outline  will  be  growing  and  changing 
with  the  development  of  knowledge  and  experience 
coming  from  these  practice  debates  and  discussions. 
B.  Extemporaneous  composition,  should,  of 
course,  be  aimed  at  in  the  preparation  of  the 
speeches.  That  being  the  case,  all  work  in  speak- 
ing by  way  of  preparation  should  be  done  ex- 
temporaneously from  outlines.  Suppose,  for  in- 
stance, that  a  given  school  is  a  member  of  a  tri- 
angular debating  league  and  is  preparing  a  team 
on  both  the  affirmative  and  negative  of  a  certain 
proposition.  As  far  as  possible  in  advance  of  the 
debate,  these  two  teams  should  begin  to  meet  each 
other  in  regular  debate.  Outlines  should  be  pre- 
pared, and  if  required,  should  be  taken  to  the  plat- 
form and  referred  to  from  time  to  time  during 
the  talking.  Each  team  should  plan  a  tentative 
case  and  method  of  attack  and  defense,  and  try  it 
out  in  debate.  After  the  debate  is  over  modifica- 
tions can  'be  made  and  plans  laid  for  the  second  de- 
bate. Through  the  entire  period  of  preparation, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  145 

there  should  be  frequent  debates  with  full  length 
main  speeches  and  rebuttals,  in  which  various  out- 
lines and  types  of  cases  are  tested  out.  If  such 
preparation  is  indulged  in,  a  well-informed,  well- 
reasoned,  live,  extemporaneous  discussion  may  be 
looked  for  in  the  final  contest.  Students  will  learn 
to  use  the  most  difficult  and  most  effective  mode 
of  talking, —  namely,  extemporaneous  talking. 
Audiences  will  be  spared  the  tedium  of  declaimed, 
memorized  speeches  in  what  might  be  a  live,  inter- 
esting, growing  discussion.  Such  preparation 
should  not  be  allowed  to  degenerate  into  mere  re- 
hearsals of  speeches.  The  teams  should  definitely 
try  different  things  in  different  debates.  Different 
methods  of  attack  and  defense  should  be  deliber- 
ately chosen  and  practiced  upon  for  the  sake  of 
variety.  Each  team  should  try  to  surprise  the  other 
in  new  methods  of  handling  the  proposition,  and 
constant  attention  should  be  given  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  teams,  and  by  instructors  or  coaches, 
not  only  to  the  fact  and  argument  presented,  but  to 
the  rhetorical  style  of  presentation  and  to  the  speak- 
ing ability  shown.  By  such  practice,  students  will 
learn  good  oral  composition,  and  will  learn  how 
to  make  public  speeches. 

C.  Four  qualities.  There  are  four  qualities 
which  should  be  found  in  extemporaneous  oral  ar- 
gument. It  is  probably  well  to  mention  them 
briefly,  and  to  advise  that  each  debater  and  each 


146  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

teacher  or  coach,  should  be  constantly  on  guard 
to  call  attention  to  any  absence  of  these  qualities, 
and  to  do  everything  possible  to  inculcate  the  quali- 
ties referred  to.  The  four  are :  brevity,  simplicity, 
vividness,  and  variety. 

i.  Brevity  means  simply  saying  what  one  has  to 
say  in  the  smallest  number  of  words  which  will 
be  effective.  This  does  not  mean  leaving  out  things 
that  should  be  said,  but  simply  omitting  unnecessary 
words.  The  proper  length  of  any  given  speech 
must  depend  upon  many  considerations.  If  you 
have  a  time-limit  to  meet,  plan  definitely  to  meet  it, 
and  plan  to  say  within  the  time-limit  as  many  things 
as  can  effectively  be  put  into  the  time  allowed.  Do 
not  waste  time  by  a  false  introduction.  Do  not 
wander  around  your  subject  trying  to  find  a  proper 
point  from  which  you  may  dive  into  it.  Move 
quickly  into  the  heart  of  the  discussion.  Present 
the  material  you  have  to  present  as  briefly  as  is  con- 
sistent with  clearness  and  force,  and  close  your 
discussion  without  tiresome  repetition  or  a  long- 
drawn-out  attempt  to  end.  Quit  when  you  are 
through.  This  is  what  brevity  means.  When  a 
debater  is  presenting  a  point  in  practice  debate, 
his  team  mates,  opponents,  and  teachers  or  coaches, 
should  note  whether  or  not  he  wastes  time,  wastes 
words.  Time  and  words  should  be  most  strictly 
economized.  Careful  attention  to  this  matter  dur- 
ing a  series  of  actual  extemporaneous  debates  will 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  147 

do  more  to  assist  the  student  in  gaining  the  ability 
to  be  brief,  than  almost  any  amount  of  work  on 
written  manuscript  which  is  handed  to  a  teacher 
for  criticism. 

2.  Simplicity  means  that  we  shall  keep  our  dis- 
cussion free  from  artificial  ornament,  pretentious 
over-done  diction  of  any  kind,  and  free  from  un- 
due   complexity    and    abstruseness.     Choose    the 
shortest,  simplest,  clearest  expression  possible  for 
the  presentation  of  the  thought  you  have  in  mind. 
Never  try  to  impress  the  audience  or  the  judges  with 
the  extent  of  your  vocabulary  or  the  versatility  of 
your  imagination.     Keep  yourself  and  your  quali- 
ties and  your  abilities  in  the  back-ground,  and  talk 
to  your  audience  about  your  proposition.     Present 
your  ideas  concerning  your  proposition  in  the  sim- 
plest language  that  will  fit  the  occasion.     By  do- 
ing this  you  can  keep  the  attention  of  your  audience 
on  the  subject  and  not  upon  your  treatment  of  the 
subject.     This  is  the  test  of  simplicity.     Do   not 
let  the  magnificence  of  your  discussion  stand  be- 
tween your  subject  and  your  audience.     By  doing 
this  you  can  best  show  your  real  ability  in  debate 
or  discussion. 

3.  Vividness  is  obtained  when  our  ideas  are  pre- 
sented in  the  strongest,  brightest,  most  lifelike  lan- 
guage which  we  can  command.     Please  note  that 
this  does  not  mean  big  words  and  far-fetched  ex- 
pressions.    Clear,  strong,  bright,  animated,  lifelike 


148  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

discussion  is  usually  simple.  A  simple  word  which 
strikes  clearly  the  mind  of  the  hearer,  and  brings 
vividly  before  him  the  idea  which  you  wish  to  pre- 
sent, is  the  word  which  you  should  always  choose. 
The  word  which  will  bring  an  idea  vividly  to  the 
mind  of  the  hearer  is  always  a  word  which  is  easily 
grasped  and  understood  by  that  hearer.  You  can- 
not present  ideas  vividly  to  an  audience  in  language 
which  is  unfamiliar  to  that  audience.  Fit  the  knowl- 
edge and  experience  of  your  hearers  as  accurately  as 
possible  by  choosing  language  which  will  bring  up 
images  that  are  very  close  to  the  lives  of  your  hear- 
ers. Concrete  and  specific  terms  are  always  more 
vivid  than  abstract  and  general  terms.  Consump- 
tion is  more  specific  than  disease ;  disease  than  indis- 
position. "  Do  not  write,"  says  Newcomer,  "  '  quite 
a  distance  '  when  you  can  just  as  well  write  *  twelve 
miles/  nor  *  rude  habitations '  when  you  mean 
'adobe  huts/  nor  'intoxicating  liquor'  when  you 
mean  '  Kentucky  bourbon/  Let  your  trees  be 
maples  or  sycamores  or  live-oaks,  and  your  birds 
towhees  or  blue-jays  or  vireos.  Give  your  char- 
acters a  name,  your  incidents  a  date,  and  even  your 
sunsets  a  geographical  location."  *  This  advice 
should  be  taken  literally  by  all  people  practicing 
argumentation  in  any  form.  And  again,  colleagues, 
teachers,  and  coaches,  should  watch  carefully  for 
any  violation  of  this  principle.  Notes  should  be 

1  Elements  of  Rhetoric,  p.  238. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  149 

taken  of  all  lapses  and  students  should  be  warned 
whenever  they  have  used  abstract  and  general  terms 
where  concrete  and  specific  terms  would  be  better. 
In  this  way,  with  very  little  practice,  the  habit  of 
using  concrete,  vivid,  live  diction  can  be  gained 
in  a  comparatively  short  time. 

4.  Variety  gives  much  the  same  kind  of  interest 
and  freshness  to  a  discussion  which  is  given  by 
vivid  diction.  The  principle  of  variety  is  observed 
when  there  is  change  throughout  the  discussion. 
When  one  is  able  to  find  various  kinds  of  sentences, 
various  kinds  of  figures  of  speech,  various  methods 
of  introducing  evidence,  various  types  of  evidence 
introduced,  various  points  of  view  presented  in  re- 
gard to  certain  phases  of  the  case,  varying  degrees 
of  intensity  in  thought  and  delivery,  the  principle 
of  variety  is  observed.  Avoid  monotony  by  se- 
curing variety  in  material  and  variety  in  form.  Be- 
ginners should  be  watched  carefully  to  see  that 
they  do  not  develop  a  habit  of  always  doing  cer- 
tain things  in  the  same  way  —  or  always  introducing 
evidence  with  a  set  formula,  or  of  concluding  points 
with  another  set  formula.  Monotonous  repetition 
of  words  or  expressions  should  be  noted  and  dis- 
couraged. 

D.  The  introduction  of  a  speech,  either  in  debate 
or  discussion,  should  first  of  all  fit  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  is  offered.  Any  speaker  in  taking 
the  platform,  either  at  the  beginning  of  a  debate  or 


150  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

in  the  middle  of  it,  should  recognize  the  point  which 
the  discussion  has  reached  at  that  time,  should  rec- 
ognize the  general  situation  before  the  audience,  and 
should  fit  himself  into  it.  The  ability  to  make  a 
careful  adaptation  to  such  circumstances  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  speech,  to  take  up  the  thought  in  the 
minds  of  his  audience  at  the  point  at  which  he  finds 
it,  and  to  carry  it  on  to  the  conclusions  he  wishes  to 
reach,  constitutes  one  of  the  finest  tests  of  ability 
in  public  discussion.  As  far  as  the  particular  prob- 
lem of  the  introduction  of  any  debate  or  discussion 
is  concerned,  since  it  has  largely  to  do  with  ex- 
planation, the  atmosphere  should  be  that  of  courte- 
ous, conciliatory  exposition,  rather  than  of  partisan 
argument.  Especially  for  the  first  speaker  on  either 
side,  the  work  of  exposition,  of  giving  definitions, 
or  narrating  the  history  of  the  controversy,  giving 
the  results  of  analysis,  stating  issues  and  partition, 
should  all  be  done,  calmly,  deliberately,  dispassion- 
ately. 

i.  The  first  affirmative.  The  steps  just  men- 
tioned should,  of  course,  always  be  taken  without 
any  exception  by  the  first  affirmative  in  a  formal 
debate.  The  first  duty,  the  ever-present  duty  of 
the  first  affirmative  in  a  formal  debate,  is  to  ex- 
plain to  the  audience  the  problem  involved  in  the 
proposition,  to  tell  the  audience  what  seems  to  him 
to  be  the  issues  contained  in  the  proposition,  and 
to  indicate  to  the  audience  exactly  what  the  position 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  151 

of  his  side  is  in  regard  to  these  issues.  What  the 
first  affirmative  has  to  do  in  addition  to  this,  is  not 
a  matter  of  so  great  importance.  If  he  has  con- 
siderable time  left,  he  may  well  move  on  into  the 
argument,  and  go  as  far  as  possible  in  substantiat- 
ing the  contentions  which  his  side  make.  But 
needed  explanation  and  analysis  should  never  be 
sacrificed  by  the  first  affirmative  for  the  purpose 
of  plunging  into  the  discussion. 

2.  The  first  negative  must  always  recognize  the 
analysis  which  the  first  affirmative  has  presented. 
He  may  agree  with  it  or  disagree  with  it.  He 
may  accept  it  in  part  and  reject  it  in  part.  He  may 
brush  it  aside  as  inadequate  or  unsatisfactory.  In 
fact,  he  may  do  with  it  what  he  will,  if  he  will  only 
recognize  it  in  some  form  or  other  and  take  it  up 
as  the  principle  contribution  of  the  first  affirmative. 
The  one  thing  the  first  negative  must  not  do  is 
to  ignore  the  analysis  of  the  first  affirmative. 
The  only  way  to  get  a  discussion  started  right  is 
to  have  the  man  who  opens  the  affirmative  of  the 
case  present  what  he  thinks  is  the  correct  analysis 
of  the  problem,  and  then  to  have  this  analysis  ac- 
cepted, or  rejected,  or  modified  in  whatever  way 
seems  necessary,  by  the  opening  speech  of  the  nega- 
tive. This  gives  clearness  and  saves  time.  It 
probably  presents  very  early  in1  the  discussion  to 
the  opponents,  the  judges,  and  the  audience,  the 
exact  points  on  which  the  two  sides  differ;  and  so 


152  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  controversy  may  be  joined  at  the  earliest  possi- 
ble moment. 

E.  The  discussion  presented  throughout  a  de- 
bate may  be  treated  as  though  it  were  all  pre- 
sented by  one  speaker,  though,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  may  run  through  the  speeches  of  a  number  of 
people.  Here  of  course  the  evidence  which  it  has 
been  decided  to  present  will  be  presented.  What 
we  have  said  above  in  regard  to  brevity,  simplicity, 
vividness,  and  variety  is  all  particularly  applicable 
to  the  discussion  of  a  debate.  Here  the  main  heads 
of  the  discussion,  the  points  in  partition  of  the  case, 
should  be  stated  clearly  and  vividly  —  should  be 
kept  before  the  audience.  Not  only  that,  but  the 
details  of  evidence  and  argument  that  are  presented 
should  be  clearly  related  to  these  main  points.  The 
relations  which  are  evident  to  the  eye  on  glancing 
through  a  brief  or  outline  must  be  made  evident  to 
the  ear  by  additional  explanation,  by  a  connect- 
ing word  here  and  there,  or  the  use  of  numbers  as 
one  moves  through  the  discussion.  Some  way  or 
other  just  how  the  case  hangs  together  must  be 
made  clear  to  the  audience.  A  confused  jumble  of 
facts  and  inferences  is  not  a  good  discussion. 
Transition  from  point  to  point  and  from  fact  to  fact 
of  the  case  should  be  made  perfectly  clear.  Here 
the  use  of  analogies  for  showing  relations,  the 
bearing  of  the  evidence,  etc.,  is  particularly  effec- 
tive. Rhetorical  questions  for  purposes  of- emphasis 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  153 

and  directness,  repetition,  particularly  of  the  main 
points,  and  the  vital  ideas  in  the  case,  may  be 
freely  used  —  much  more  freely  in  fact  than  would 
be  allowable  in  a  written  manuscript.  In  talking 
to  an  audience  we  have  to  do  by  words  much  that 
is  done  by  chapter  headings,  page  headlines,  para- 
graph indentation,  changes  in  type,  etc.,  on  the 
printed  page.  A  good  debater,  a  good  speaker,  an 
artist  in  public  discussion,  talks  to  an  audience  and 
does  not  present  to  them  a  memorized  essay.  The 
speaker  should  keep  close  to  his  audience,  should 
carry  his  audience  with  him,  by  talking  intimately 
to  them,  and  explaining  to  them  point  by  point  the 
relations  of  various  parts  of  his  discussion,  and  the 
bearing  that  it  all  has  on  the  vital  considerations 
involved  in  the  proposition  itself. 

F.  The  conclusions  to  debates  and  formal  discus- 
sions are  usually  not  very  difficult  to  plan.  A  sum- 
mary should  practically  always  be  given,  and  the 
summary  may  be  long  or  short,  according  as  cir- 
cumstances seem  to  dictate.  The  briefest  summary 
that  will  bring  puickly  to  the  minds  of  the  audience 
the  basic  considerations  in  any  discussion  is  the 
correct  summary.  Sometimes,  however,  the  brief- 
est summary  which  will  do  this,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
will  take  a  good  many  minutes  to  present.  But 
however  long  it  takes,  at  the  close  of  any  discussion, 
the  speaker  should  gather  up  the  threads  of  the  ar- 
gument and  present  the  big  ideas  with  which  he  has 


154  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

been  dealing,  as  they  all  relate  to  each  other  and 
to  the  whole  proposition.  He  should  aim  to  leave 
a  single,  unified  impression  with  his  hearers. 

i.  Balanced  summary.  In  formal  debate  where 
there  are  two  opposing  sides,  what  is  called  the 
balanced  summary  is  the  best  possible  one  to  give. 
This  is  a  summary  in  which  the  main  points  of 
one  side  are  taken  up  step  by  step  parallel  to  the 
main  points  of  other  side,  and  a  direct  comparison 
between  the  two  cases  is  made  from  beginning  to 
end.  This  being  done,  of  course,  for  the  purpose 
of  strengthening  the  points  of  your  case  in  the 
minds  of  your  hearers,  and  minimizing  and  weaken- 
ing the  force  of  your  oppoents'  case  at  the  same 
time.  In  the  practice  debates  preceding  a  formal 
contest,  speakers  should  always  attempt  this  form 
of  summary.  Practice  here  will  almost  surely  make 
perfect.  It  is  not  an  easy  thing  to  summarize  two 
elaborate  cases  in  this  parallel  manner,  but  it  is 
well  worth  learning  to  do.  It  is  the  most  perfect 
summary  that  can  be  given  at  the  end  of  the  argu- 
ment, and  anyone  who  aspires  to  be  a  debater 
should  learn  how  to  do  it,  and  how  to  do  it  all  ex- 
temporaneously. Of  course  some  speculation  may 
be  had  in  advance  as  to  what  an  opponent's  case 
may  be,  and  possible  types  of  balanced  summary 
may  be  planned  or  practiced,  but  when  the  final  con- 
test comes,  the  two  cases  that  should  be  summar- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  155 

ized  together  are  the  actual  cases  that  have  been 
presented  on  the  platform,  and  not  supposed  cases 
which  were  figured  out  in  advance. 

G.  Rebuttal  speeches  have  already  been  discussed 
in  the  chapter  on  refutation.  What  was  said  there 
in  regard  to  the  purpose  of  such  speeches  does  not 
need  to  be  repeated  at  length  here.  That  chapter 
should  be  reviewed  at  this  point  if  the  reader  has 
forgotten  what  was  there  said.  It  may  be  well, 
however,  to  repeat  here  that  the  universal  under- 
standing in  regard  to  rebuttal  speeches  and  formal 
debate,  that  new  arguments  may  not  be  advanced  in 
the  rebuttal  speech,  should  be  scrupulously  observed. 
Do  not  let  the  circumstances  of  extemporaneous 
composition  of  rebuttal  tempt  you  to  a  violation  of 
this  principle.  In  this  matter,  in  answering  the 
actual  case  against  you  instead  of  an  anticipated 
case,  in  all  things  be  perfectly  fair  and  honest  and 
courteous  to  your  opponent.  It  is  very  rare  in- 
deed that  any  speaker  before  any  audience  can 
gain  any  advantage  for  himself  by  exhibiting  a 
spirit  of  discourtesy  or  unfairness  or  loss  of  tem- 
per. The  introduction  of  such  an  attitude  hurts 
you,  hurts  your  case,  cheapens  the  whole  discussion, 
and  probably  embarrasses  and  offends  the  well-bred 
people  of  your  audience.  State  your  opponent's 
position  fairly  before  attempting  to  refute  it. 
When  you  point  out  what  he  has  said  for  the  pur- 


156  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

pose  of  offering  your  arguments  against  it,  point 
out  exactly  what  he  has  said.  Do  not  exaggerate 
and  color  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  easy  to 
refute.  Be  honest,  be  courteous,  be  fair! 


CHAPTER  X 

DELIVERY 

A.  Importance  of  delivery. 

B.  Learning  to  speak  in  public. 

C.  Four  methods  of  delivery. 

1.  Impromptu. 

2.  Reading. 

3.  Memorized. 

4.  Extemporaneous. 

a.  Advantages. 

(I)  Flexibility. 
(II)  Fit  mood  of  audience. 

(III)  Physical  and  nervous. 

(IV)  Use  inspiration  of  audience. 

b.  Dangers. 

(I)  Inaccuracy. 

(II)  Repetition. 

(Ill)  Monotony. 

c.  Advantages  greater  than  dangers. 

d.  Mixed   method   or   "block   system." 

D.  Platform  helps. 

1.  Notes. 

2.  Charts. 

E.  Final  word. 

A.  Importance  of  delivery.  The  delivery  of  the 
speech  to  the  audience,  the  oral  presentation  of 
the  case,  is  of  course  of  great  importance  in  all 
debate  or  oral  discussion.  It  is  not  enough  here 
to  be  able  to  analyze  propositions,  investigate  prob- 
lems, and  marshal  evidence  and  argument.  In  ad- 
dition to  these  things,  it  is  necessary  to  be  able 


158  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

to  present  effectively  to  an  audience  the  result  of 
one's  labors.  Much  of  the  advantage  that  comes  of 
having  done  well  the  steps  so  far  considered,  can 
easily  be  lost  by  one  who  fails  in  the  final  process 
of  presenting  orally  the  result  of  all  his  work  to 
the  audience  or  tribunal  whose  opinion  he  is  seek- 
ing to  influence.  Anyone  starting  out  in  the  field 
of  debate  and  oral  discussion  should  then  have  two 
fundamental  truths  in  mind  in  regard  to  delivery. 
The  first  is,  that  it  is  of  great  importance;  and  the 
second  is,  that  one's  ability  in  this  part  of  debate  is 
usually  the  direct  result  of  careful  study  and  prac- 
tice. /That  sort  of  superlative  ability  in  speaking 
iwhich  is  sometimes  needed  for  the  delivery  of  the 
greatest  orations,  and  which  is  thought  to  be  the 
special  gift  of  orators  who  are  born  and  not  made, 
is  rarely  if  ever  required  for  debate  and  oral  dis- 
cussion. Simple,  sincere,  straightforward,  digni- 
fied, forceful  talking  is  what  is  required;  and  this 
kind  of  talking  is  within  the  reach  of  all  normally 
intelligent  people.  It  is  not  the  result  of  being  born 
with  any  peculiar  gift.  Therefore  the  beginner 
should  realize  that  it  is  of  first  importance  that 
he  start  right  in  the  very  beginning  and  develop 
correct  habits  of  speaking. 

B.  Learning  to  speak  in  public  is  too  broad  a  field 
to  permit  of  its  being  covered,  or  even  touched  upon, 
in  all  its  phases,  in  this  text.  The  suggestions  of 
this  chapter  have  to  do  with  modes  of  preparation 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  159 

leading  to  different  types  of  delivery,  rather  than 
»with  the  details  of  platform  speaking  itself.  In 
one  sense  of  the  word,  public  speaking  cannot  be 
taught  through  the  printed  page  as  some  other  sub- 
jects might  be.  The  best  possible  method  of  im- 
provement in  public  speaking  is  study  and  practice 
under  a  competent  instructor  who  can  give  personal 
criticism  and  suggestion.  The  best  way  to  learn 
to  speak  is  by  speaking;  and  the  best  way  to  learn 
to  speak  well  is  by  speaking  under  the  criticism 
and  direction  of  one  who  knows  how  to  teach  the 
art  of  speaking  well.  Regular  study  in  regular 
courses  given  by  competent  teachers  is  the  best  pos- 
sible method  of  getting  the  right  start.  Actual 
practice  before  regular  audiences  is  the  only  possi- 
ble means  of  becoming  really  proficient.  But  the 
beginner  should  realize  that  practice  alone  is  of 
doubtful  value,  unless  it  is  guided  and  corrected  by 
sound  criticism  and  instruction.  Simple  experience 
in  talking  will  set  and  crystallize  whatever  one's 
natural  inclinations  are;  and  we  should  remember 
that  the  advice,  "  be  natural,"  is  not  the  whole  of 
intelligent  instruction  and  speech.  It  is  apparently 
natural  for  many  people  to  speak  abominably.  If 
a  young  speaker  has  certain  faults,  and  speaks  a 
great  deal  without  having  these  faults  corrected,  he 
probably  will  never  get  rid  of  them.  So  that,  if 
a  beginner  is  not  naturally  a  good  speaker,  a  great 
deal  of  practice  without  intelligent  criticism  may 


160  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

do  much  more  harm  than  good.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  a  student  is  naturally  a  very  good  speaker,  a  great 
deal  of  practice  with  an  instructor  is  really  not 
needed. 

C.  Four  methods  of  delivery  should  be  mentioned, 
i.  Impromptu  speaking  is  speaking  wholly  with- 
out plan,  preparation,  or  premeditation.  The  dif- 
ference between  impromptu  speaking  and  extem- 
poraneous speaking  should  be  kept  in  mind.  Im- 
promptu speaking,  properly  so-called,  is  quite  out- 
side of  the  range  of  discussion  in  this  book,  because 
here  we  are  discussing  methods  of  presenting  cases 
which  have  been  prepared. 

2.  Reading  your  speech  from  a  written  manu- 
script is  the  second  method  of  delivery.  Such  a 
method  is  often  used  by  people  who  have  carefully 
prepared  a  paper  on  some  topic  for  which  very 
painstaking  phraseology  was  desirable.  The  read- 
ing of  a  manuscript  to  an  audience  under  such  cir- 
cumstances is  sometimes  permissible,  but  almost  al- 
ways it  is  not  so  good  as  some  other  method  of  de- 
livery would  be.  The  reader  is  of  course  shut  off 
from  his  audience.  His  delivery  probably  will  lack 
directness.  It  will  probably  lack  expressiveness, 
conversational  quality,  life,  variety,  vividness.  Un- 
der such  circumstances  the  audience  is  almost  sure  to 
hear  "  desk  phraseology  "  rather  than  the  live  dic- 
tion which  is  likely  to  come  to  a  man  who  is  really 
talking  spontaneously  to  a  real  audience.  While 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  161 

there  may  be  circumstances  in  which  reading  such  a 
manuscript  is  quite  permissible,  such  an  occasion 
never  occurs  in  debate  or  in  what  we  commonly 
think  of  as  public  oral  discussion.  As  far  as  those 
for  whom  this  book  is  intended  are  concerned,  this 
method  should  of  course  never  be  indulged  in. 

3.  Memorized  delivery,  the  presenting  of  the 
speech  to  the  audience  from  memory,  word  for 
word,  as  written  in  the  manuscript,  has  some  ad- 
vantages over  reading;  and  of  course  if  the  memory 
is  accurate,  this  method  has  the  same  advantages 
that  reading  has  in  regard  to  exactness  of  phrase- 
ology. The  speaker  from  memory  will  probably 
say  to  the  audience  precisely  what  he  intended  to 
say,  and  will  therefore  be  spared  one  of  the  dangers 
of  extemporaneous  speaking,  but  this  very  advan- 
tage conceals  a  disadvantage  within  it.  He  is  say- 
ing what  he  had  prepared  to  say  some  days  before 
the  actual  occasion  occurred.  It  is  warmed  over, 
second  hand,  very  often  out  of  tone  with  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  speech  is  actually  being 
delivered.  The  speaker  is  shut  off  entirely  from 
taking  advantage  of  things  that  happened  just  be- 
for  the  speech  was  delivered,  or  those  which  may 
take  place  during  the  course  of  the  discussion. 
Memorized  speaking  is  likely  to  be  wooden,  hollow, 
artificial,  and  therefore  ineffective.  It  should  be 
avoided  by  beginners  in  public  discussion  of  all 
kinds,  and  should  never  be  indulged  in  by  anyone 


162  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

in  the  course  of  a  debate.  Debating  is  necessarily, 
if  it  is  real  debating,  live,  running  discussion,  a 
give  and  take,  in  which  what  one  speaker  says  is 
necessarily  conditioned  by  and  dependent  upon  what 
others  have  said  before  him.  Memorized  speaking 
is  so  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  good  debating 
that  it  should  never  under  any  circumstances  be  at- 
tempted by  a  debater. 

4.  Extemporaneous  speaking  means  the  delivery 
of  a  carefully  prepared  debate  or  discussion  or 
speech  in  which  the  preparation  has  stopped  short 
of  final  manuscript  form.  In  extemporaneous 
speaking  everything  is  prepared  in  advance  except 
the  actual  phraseology  of  the  moment.  It  is  de- 
livering a  carefully  prepared  case  from  notes  or 
outline.  The  notes  or  outline  may  or  may  not  be 
used  on  the  platform.  A  speaker  may  speak  ex- 
temporaneously from  a  memorized  outline,  or  from 
an  outline  carried  on  a  card  or  cards. 

a.  The  advantages  of  extemporaneous  speaking 
in  debate  or  oral  discussion  are  many.  (I)  In  the 
first  place,  it  permits  of  flexibility,  which  is  usually 
essential  to  good  debating  or  discussion.  It  allows 
the  speaker  to  fit  his  speech  to  what  others  have  said, 
to  strike  out  at  the  last  moment  something  which  he 
found  to  be  unnecessary  or  unwise,  to  insert  dur- 
ing the  debate  points  which  he  had  not  intended  to 
include,  or  to  rearrange  and  present  in  a  different 
order  the  points  he  had  planned  on,  in  order  to  bet- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  163 

ter  meet  what  preceding  speakers  have  said.  A 
carefully  prepared  case  handled  thus  from  a  flex- 
ible outline  allows  the  speaker  perfect  freedom  to 
take  advantage  of  the  turn  of  events  at  any  moment. 
In  a  live  discussion,  such  freedom  is  absolutely 
necessary. 

(II)  In  the  second  place,  extemporaneous  speak- 
ing allows  the  speaker  to  keep  close  to,  and  to  fit 
the  mood  of  his  audience.     The  extemporaneous 
speaker  knows  whether  his  audience  are  agreeing 
with  him  or  disagreeing  with  him.     He  can  catch 
signs  of  approval  or  disapproval,  or  of  doubt,  or 
misunderstanding.     He  can  repeat  points  that  seem 
not  clear  to  the  audience.     He  can  drop  entirely  a 
line  of  discussion  which  he  observes  to  be  unpleasant 
or  incomprehensible  to  them.     He  can  keep  con- 
tinually in  touch  with  the  atmosphere  of  his  audi- 
ence,   and   thus   tremendously   increase    his    possi- 
bilities of  conviction  and  persuasion.     He  can  con- 
verse with  his  audience ;  he  can  reason  with  his  audi- 
ence; he  can  actually  ask  them  questions  and  get 
their  answers,  arid  be  guided  by  them.     His  speech 
can  be  real  conversation  or  communication. 

(III)  Third,  extemporizing  has  real  physical  and 
nervous  advantages.     The  burden  of  remembering; 
the  restriction  of  a  manuscript,  holding  the  eyes  to 
the  paper,  very  often  restricting  the  throat  by  the 
inclination  of  the  head;  the  binding  of  the  speaker 
to  the  reading  stand ;  the  restriction  caused  by  using 


1 64  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the  arms  to  hold  the  manuscript  Dr  book  —  all  these 
limiting  and  binding  conditions  of  manuscript  deliv- 
ery (either  read  or  memorize)  are  gone  in  extem- 
poraneous speaking.  The  speaker  is  physically  and 
mentally  free.  He  is  not  afraid  of  breaking  down. 
He  cannot  lose  his  place  in  the  speech.  His  run 
of  ideas  are  indicated  by  the  outline  in  his  hand, 
which  he  is  perfectly  free  to  look  at  when  he  likes. 
He  is  using  no  nervous  energy  to  recall  the  words 
of  a  manuscript.  He  can  stand  erect  and  move  at 
will,  and  use  all  of  his  powers  as  freely  as  he 
chooses  to  make  the  most  of  any  turn  which  the 
discussion  may  take. 

(IV)  Fourth,  the  extemporizer  is  free  to  capi- 
talize and  use  the  inspiration  of  the  audience.  This 
does  not  mean  what  we  have  already  mentioned,  be- 
ing free  to  fit  into  the  mood  of  the  audience.  It 
means  that  a  speaker  is  free  to  be  carried  to  heights 
of  force  and  feeling,  diction,  eloquence,  which  he 
could  never  reach  without  the  stimulus  of  an  audi- 
ence before  him.  Many  experienced  speakers  will 
tell  you  that  it  is  impossible  for  them  in  the  quiet 
of  their  studies  to  bring  to  mind  and  put  down 
on  paper  as  live  and  forceful  and  vivid  phraseology 
as  is  sure  to  come  to  them  when  they  start  talking 
extemporaneously  to  an  actual  audience  on  some 
case  which  has  been  in  substance  very  carefully  pre- 
pared. Extemporaneous  composition  is  better  com- 
position for  the  purpose  at  hand. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  165 

b.  The  dangers  of  extemporaneous  speaking 
should  also  be  mentioned.  (I)  In  the  first  place,  the 
extemporaneous  speaker  is  in  danger  of  being  in- 
accurate. He  may  not  say  just  what  he  intended 
to  say.  In  the  enthusiasm  of  his  eloquence  he  may 
exaggerate.  He  is  likely  to  use  stronger  descrip- 
tive adjectives  than  he  would  have  chosen  if  he 
were  carefully  writing  a  manuscript  at  his  desk. 
"  A  few  "  may  become  "  a  great  many  " ;  "  some- 
times "  may  become  "  always."  In  various  ways  he 
may  be  so  carried  away  that  he  says  things  which 
he  regrets  after  the  speech  is  over.  Careful  self- 
control  should  be  developed  and  exercised  by  all 
extemporaneous  speakers  in  order  to  avoid  this  bad 
habit  of  exaggeration. 

(II)  The  second  danger  of  extemporaneous 
speaking  is  the  danger  of  an  awkward  and  tiresome 
repetition.  Coming  back  to  the  same  point  time 
after  time;  going  around  your  case  in  a  circle  and 
repeating  sections  of  it;  losing  yourself  some  way  or 
other,  and  presenting  to  the  audience  certain  ideas 
which  are  prominent  in  your  case  so  many  times  that 
the  audience  wearies  of  the  repetition  —  this  fault 
of  extemporaneous  speaking  is  usually  the  cause  of 
speeches  that  are  very  much  longer  than  they  should 
be.  Very  many  extemporaneous  speakers  never 
know  when  to  quit.  They  are  too  long  in  getting 
started,  repeat  needlessly  ideas  in  the  introduction, 
and  then  go  over  their  discussion  two  or  three  times 


1 66  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

before  they  finally  close  the  speech.  Careful  prac- 
tice in  presenting  extemporaneous  speeches  from 
outline  ought  to  insure  one  against  this  danger. 
But  it  is  well  in  the  beginning  to  realize  that  this 
is  a  very  real  danger,  and  to  take  whatever  steps 
are  necessary  in  order  to  avoid  falling  into  the 
habit  of  tiresome  repetition. 

(Ill)  A  third  danger  is  monotony.  An  extem- 
poraneous speaker  is  in  danger  of  falling  into  the 
habit  of  saying  all  sorts  of  things  in  the  same  way; 
going  through  a  logical  formula  and  presenting 
different  ideas  as  they  occur  to  him  always  in  the 
same  manner;  of  characterizing  different  things  in 
the  same  ways;  of  using  the  same  descriptive  ad- 
jectives ;  of  summing  up  in  a  monotonous,  habitual 
form.  All  this  should  be  avoided.  Team-mates 
and  instructors  should  be  watching  constantly  for 
the  tiresome  monotonous  habit  of  repeated  form, 
even  when  the  substance  varies. 

c.  Advantages  outweigh  disadvantages.  All 
practitioners  of  debate  and  oral  discussion  should  use 
the  extemporaneous  method,  because,  on  the  whole, 
its  advantages  greatly  outweigh  its  disadvantages. 
The  disadvantages  frankly  recognized  may  all  be 
guarded  against,  and  the  advantages  which  have 
been  mentioned  can  be  gotten  under  no  other  possi- 
ble system.  By  careful  practice,  any  person  of 
normal  intelligence  can  learn  to  talk  extemporane- 
ously. Anyone  doing  regular  work  for  the  pur- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  167 

pose  of  learning  how  to  debate  or  take  part  in  pub- 
lic oral  discussion  should  never  use  any  other 
method. 

d.  The  mixed  method,  or  "  block  system,"  of 
memorizing  certain  sections  of  a  debate  or  discus- 
sion, and  using  these  at  various  points  mixed  in 
with  extemporaneous  work  is  sometimes  permissi- 
ble, and  even  advisable.  Memorizing  certain  sec- 
tions in  regard  to  which  great  care  should  be  taken 
is  perhaps  a  wise  precaution.  The  so-called  "  block 
system  "  of  memorizing  the  entire  speech  in  sepa- 
rate sections  so  that  they  may  be  shifted  around 
at  will  or  be  dropped  out  is  probably  going  too  far 
in  the  direction  of  memorized  speech.  But  a  memo- 
rized introduction  or  conclusion  or  a  memorized 
presentation  of  certain  points  in  the  discussion  may 
be  well  worth  while,  in  circumstances  where  very 
careful  wording  is  especially  desirable. 

D.  Platform  helps,  such  as  notes,  outlines,  charts, 
etc.,  should  be  used  or  not  used  according  as  they 
fit  the  general  principle  that  we  should  do  ivhat  is 
really  helpful  and  serviceable  in  this  respect. 

I.  Notes.  The  prejudice  that  still  exists  in  some 
places  against  speaking  from  notes  should  be  dis- 
regarded. The  speaker  should  be  interested  in  pre- 
senting his  ideas  to  his  audience.  If  the  use  of 
notes  will  assist  him  in  doing  that  work  efficiently, 
he  should  use  notes.  If  the  subject  is  so  simple 
that  notes  would  not  be  of  real  assistance,  but 


168  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

would,  on  the  other  hand,  shut  him  off  from  his 
audience,  insulate  him  from  his  audience,  keep  him 
from  talking  directly  to  them,  break  up  the  con- 
tinuity of  his  thought, —  then  notes  should  not  be 
used,  j  There  is  no  thumb  rule  that  can  be  ap- 
plied. But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  very  long 
speeches  or  intricate  speeches,  some  notes  would 
probably  be  helpful;  and  we  should  never  re- 
frain from  using  them  simply  by  reason  of  a 
prejudice  which  exists  in  the  minds  of  some 
people.  These  folks  seem  to  think  that  it  is  a 
fine  display  of  ability  to  see  a  man  talk  to 
an  audience  for  an  hour  without  referring  to  a 
paper  of  any  kind.  It  may  be  a  display  of  abil- 
ity; it  may  show  a  great  memory;  or  it  may  be  a 
display  of  stupidity  and  artificiality.  Notes  in 
themselves  are  neither  good  nor  bad.  They  should 
be  used  or  not,  according  as  they  will  be  really 
serviceable.  Outlines  should  always  be  prepared, 
and  if  very  short  and  capable  of  being  easily  memo- 
rized, may  well  be  treated  in  that  way  and  not 
carried  to  the  platform.  If  the  outline  is  long  or 
intricate,  it  should  be  carefully  typewritten  on  4  x  6 
or  5  x  8  cards,  and  freely  and  frankly  carried  in 
the  hand  or  deposited  on  the  reading  stand  where 
reference  to  it  will  be  easy.  Worked  into  such 
an  outline  should  be  all  literal  quotations  except 
very  short  ones,  and  all  statistics  to  which  refer- 
ence is  to  be  made.  The  speaker  should  never  at- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  169 

tempt  to  give  to  an  audience  long  literal  quota- 
tions, or  to  give  statistics  of  any  kind  from  memory. 
Careful  judges  and  auditors  should  be  suspicious 
of  memorized  quotations.  It  is  foolish  to  burden 
the  memory  with  intricate  matters  of  this  kind 
which  could  be  much  more  easily  carried  on  a 
card;  and  sometimes  the  debater  makes  a  mistake, 
and  runs  out  from  memory  the  wrong  set  of  statis- 
tics or  the  wrong  quotation.  When  such  things 
occur  in  debates,  the  result  is  very  disastrous  in- 
deed. 

2.  Charts  and  diagrams  to  be  hung  up  before  the 
audience  may  be  used  whenever  you  have  impor- 
tant material  which  you  can  present  in  less  time 
with  a  chart  than  without  it.  Do  not  hang  up 
a  chart  because  you  think  it  will  look  well,  or  in- 
dicate great  industry  or  research  on  your  part. 
Unless  the  material  which  you  have  on  the  chart 
can  be  more  quickly  presented  in  that  method,  and 
unless  it  is  very  important  material,  do  not  in- 
troduce a  chart.  When  a  chart  is  introduced,  it 
should  always  be  left  hanging  for  the  opponents 
to  make  whatever  use  of  it  they  may  wish  to  make. 
It  is  decidedly  bad  sportsmanship  in  a  debate  to 
take  down  a  chart  after  you  have  used  it  in  order 
that  your  opponents  may  not  have  an  opportunity 
to  refer  to  it.  Whenever  one  side  does  this  the 
other  side  should  openly  demand  that  the  chart  be 
replaced,  and  left  before  the  audience  for  the  re- 


170  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

mainder  of  the  debate.  Where  the  affirmative  have 
the  last  rebuttal,  charts  are  often  more  dangerous 
for  a  negative  team  than  for  an  affirmative;  for 
then  the  affirmative  may  put  off  a  refutation  of 
the  chart  until  the  last  rebuttal  speech,-  after  which 
the  negative  have  no  opportunity  to  make  good 
any  damage  that  might  be  done  by  the  affirmative. 
Unless  you  are  very  sure  of  your  chart,  it  is  prob- 
ably well  not  to  use  it  under  these  conditions  on 
the  negative  side. 

E.  A  final  word  may  be  given  in  regard  to  de- 
bate and  oral  discussion :  that  word  is  reality.  Try 
to  make  all  debating  and  discussion  a  real  presenta- 
tion to  a  real  audience.  Talk  to  your  audience; 
do  not  display  your  personal  ability  in  front  of  the 
audience.  Say  "  ladies  and  gentlemen  " ;  never  say 
"  honorable  judges  "  when  you  have  a  whole  audi- 
ence before  you.  If  you  are  talking  to  a  board  of 
honorable  judges,  and  there  is  no  one  else  present, 
then  you  might  so  refer  to  them.  But  the  habit  in 
contest  debating  of  addressing  the  speeches  to  the 
judges  when  there  is  present  an  audience  of  four 
or  five  hundred  people  is  decidedly  bad  form.  The 
judges  should  simply  be  members  of  the  audience, 
and  should  in  no  way  be  singled  out  and  made  to 
stand  out  above  the  audience.  The  debate  or  dis- 
cussion should  be  addressed  to  the  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen present.  And  when  it  is  over,  the  judges 
should  pass  their  opinion  on  the  work  done  simply  as 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  171 

especially  competent  critics  who  happen  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  audience  talked  to.  Let  the  reality  of 
the  discussion  influence  your  speaking.  Use  your 
natural  voice.  Do  not  "speechify";  do  not  de- 
claim ;  do  not  "  orate."  Talk  to  your  audience;  tell 
them  directly  and  simply  what  you  know  and  what 
you  think  in  regard  to  the  problem  you  are  discuss- 
ing. Make  your  contest  discussion  or  contest  de- 
bate in  every  way  as  near  as  possible  to  what  it 
would  be  if  you  were  arguing  a  question  on  which, 
after  your  speech,  the  members  of  your  audience 
were  going  to  vote.  Keep  such  an  atmosphere  of 
reality  in  your  contest  and  practice  debates  and 
discussions,  and  then  whatever  practice  and  experi- 
ence you  go  through  will  surely  be  a  very  high  type 
of  training  for  the  actual  debates  and  discussions  of 
real  life. 


APPENDIX 

A.  Parliamentary  Motions. 

B.  A  Student's  Brief. 

C.  A  Student's  Brief,  Outline,  and  Speech. 

D.  Material  for  Briefing. 

1.  Editorial,  Biennial  State  Elections. 

2.  Argumentative  Address,  Our  Merchant  Marine. 

3.  Student's   Argument,    The   Railways   after   the 
War. 

4.  Special    Article    (Refutation),    The    Minimum 
Wage. 

E.  Debating  Leagues. 

F.  Instructions  and  Ballot  for  Judge  of  a  Debate. 

G.  Criticism  Blank  and  Ballot  for  Judge  of  a  Debate. 
H.  Discussion  Contests. 

I.  Instructions  and  Ballot  for  Judge  of  a  Discussion  Con- 
test. 


173 


174  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 


C/] 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  175 

•A  ,P          --A-A      £  w        JL,  QJ  <u  *>        A  1  rt*O  A 

*         *      «  i I    |11|    | 8||  | 

o         So     fcS      g|||     g^il  I 

2  2        >.Z    fi.s    •fB*'p     fl     |  ™      d, 


il  Mil  I  -s 

i|  i.t|i  8ji|  rt  a 


S  o 

>H  ^ 

g  c     -26^     ^  t3  ft-S      3 

— ,  u          ,  "*  £     ^^^^S     M-H  >,^  c      be 

i  O.^         «,  S 


x$  f>  -M-'5  ^  a    *<3 

IJilssi 


. 

-o  o  c  ..  £*B     8  *•" 

i_   u««  „.   -5J   ""4.1  C  «^_, 

"-« 


2    .g  5>        3-        £  ^-g 

^2    -an     t    -2^2.5    .S 


<u-      sg      as.5?*-      ^ 


APPENDIX  B 
(A  student's  brief) 

GOVERNMENT  OWNERSHIP  OF  THE  TELE- 
PHONES AND  TELEGRAPHS 

BY  JOHN  L.  NEWMAN 

Resolved:  that  the  federal  government  should  own 
and  operate  all  public  service  telephone  and  telegraph 
lines,  constitutionality  granted. 

INTRODUCTION 
(Negative) 

I.    The  telephone  and  telegraph  are  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance in  our  life. 

A.  The  telephone  has  great  utility  in  the  home. 

1.  It    permits    the    housewife    to    do    away 
with  the  hardships  of  shopping. 

2.  It  permits  quick  communication  between 
the  members  of  the  home. 

B.  The  telephone  and  telegraph  are  of  great  use 
on  the  farm. 

1.  The  telephone  has  made  farm  life  more 
attractive  by  conversational  facilities. 

2.  Telephones  make  profitable  openings  by 
connections  with  city  firms. 

3.  Market  quotations  are  spread  extensively. 

C.  They  are  invaluable  in  business. 

i.  They  have  brought  business  in  touch  with 
the  home. 

176 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  177 

2.  The  telephone  saves  hours  of  messenger 
time  for  business  men. 

3.  They  permit  principals  to  keep  in  touch 
with  agents. 

4.  Contracts  are  made  by  the  telephone  and 
telegraph. 

5.  Money  is  transferred  from  place  to  place. 
D.  The  telephone  and  telegraph  are  indispensable 

in  our  national  life. 

1.  The  telephone  has  made  possible  the  resi- 
dential suburb. 

2.  News  is  transferred  by  means  of  the  tele- 
graph  and  telephone. 

3.  They  have  brought  about  a  closer  exist- 
ence. 

II.    The  value  of  the  telephone  and  telegraph  depend 
upon  several  things. 

A.  It  is  important  that  the  telephone  system  be 
extensive  in  its  reach. 

B.  It  is  important  that  telegraph  offices  be  num- 
erous. 

C.  It  is  essential  that  service  be  efficient. 

1.  The  telephone  and  telegraph  must  be  more 
rapid  than  any  other  agencies. 

2.  They  must  be  absolutely  reliable. 

D.  The  rates  charged  must  be  reasonable. 

1.  The  number  of  telephones  will  otherwise 
be  decreased. 

2.  The  use  of  the  telegraph  will  be  replaced 
by  mail  service. 

III.     The  question  of  ownership  and  operation  is  an  im- 
portant one. 

A.  The  present  status  of  the  telephone  and  tele- 
graph system  in  the  United  States  is  private 
ownership. 


i;8  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

B.  Some   maintain    that    private    ownership    and 
operation  is  best,  because 

1.  Government     ownership     and     operation 
would  destroy  individual   enterprise. 

2.  Efficiency   is  greatest  under   private  op- 
eration. 

3.  Cheap  rates  under  government  operation 
are  not  actually  cheap. 

4.  Government  control  would  bring  political 
evils. 

C.  Some    maintain    that    government    ownership 
and  operation  is  best,  because 

1.  Service  would  be  more  efficient. 

a.  The  telegraph  would  be  combined 
with  the  Post  Office.  (Government 
ownership  of  Electrical  Means  of 
Communication.  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment, pp.  19-36.) 

2.  Rates  would  be  cheaper.     (Report  of  the 
Post  Office  Department,  pp.  19-36.) 

3.  Private  monopoly  of  such  a  system  is  con- 
trary to  public  welfare.     (Report  of  the 
Post  Office  Department,  pp.  io/-36-) 

D.  Government  ownership  and  operation  is  not 
a  new  question. 

1.  Postmaster     General    Johnson     in     1846 
recommended   government    ownership   of 
the    telegraphs.     (Report    of    the    Post 
Office  Department,  p.  19.) 

2.  Almost    every   postmaster    general    since 
the  Civil  War  has  endorsed  it.     (Report 
of  the  Post  Office  Department,  p.  36.) 

3.  70  bills  for  government  ownership  have 
been  introduced  into  Congress.     (Report 
of  the  Post  Office  Department,  p.  36.) 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  179 

IV.     Government  ownership  and  operation  will  mean :  that 

A.  The  federal  government  must  take  over  all  the 
public  service  telephone  and  telegraph  wires. 

1.  There   are    1,800,000   miles   of   telegraph 
wire.     (Report  of  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment, p.  8.) 

2.  There  are   18,179,000  miles  of  telephone 
wire.     (Report   of   the    Post    Office    De- 
partment, p.  9.) 

3.  The  cost  of  the  government  will  be  a  lit- 
tle   less    than    $900,000,000.     (Report    of 
the  Post  Office  Department,  p.  12.) 

B.  The  federal  government  must  operate  all  the 
telephone  and  telegraph  systems. 

1.  220,000  employees  must  be  provided.    (Re- 
port of  the  Post  Office  Department,  p.  12.) 

2.  Facilities  must  be  maintained. 

V.     The   issues   in   this  question  of   federal  ownership 
are: 

A.  Is  there  dissatisfaction  with  the  present  system 
of  private  ownership  and  operation  of  the  tele- 
phones and  telegraphs? 

B.  Is  government  ownership  the  best  means  of 
securing  the  best  service  at  the  lowest  rates  ? 

VI.    The  negative  side  will  attempt  to  prove:  that 

A.  There  is  no  great  dissatisfaction  with  the  pres- 
ent system  of  private  ownership  and  operation. 

B.  Government  ownership  and  operation  cannot 
secure  better  service. 

C.  Possible  nominally  lower  rates  under  govern- 
ment ownership  will  offer   no  actual   advan- 
tages 

DISCUSSION 
I.    There  is  no  great  dissatisfaction  with  the  present 


i8o  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

system  of  private  ownership  and  operation  of  the 
telephones  and  telegraphs. 

A.  Popular  demand  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  such 
a  radical  change  as  government  ownership. 

1.  Congress  has  never  taken  any  action  on 
the  large  number  of  bills  for  government 
ownership  introduced. 

a.  Such  bills  have  been  introduced 
without  result  seventeen  times.  (  Jud- 
son,  Government  Ownership  of  the 
Telephones  and  Telegraphs.) 

2.  Postmaster  generals  for  the  last  twenty- 
five  years  have  been  advocating  govern- 
ment ownership  and  operation.     (Govern- 
ment Ownership  of  the  Electrical  Means 
of  Communication,  by  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment.) 

3.  Popular  opinion  is  satisfied  with  the  pres- 
ent laws  for  the  regulation  of  public  serv- 
ice corporations. 

a.  The  people  are  still  indifferent  to 
government  ownership.  (Editorial, 
Rochester  Union  Advertiser,  Dec.  19, 


b.  The  people  are  even  antagonistic  to 
government  ownership. 

(I)  The  voice  of  the  press  shows 
that  the  people  have  pro- 
claimed against  government 
ownership  of  the  telephone 
and  telegraph.  (Washington 
Herald,  Jan.  5,  1914.) 

c.  Complaints      against      the      private 
owned  telephone  and  telegraph  sys- 
tem are  few. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  181 

(I)  A  survey  of  the  periodicals 
for  the  year  show  little  com- 
plaint. 

4.  Lack  of  confidence  by  the  people  makes 
government  ownership  and  operation  im- 
practical. 

a.  Such  a  great  enterprise  should  have 
public  support. 

(I)  Its  success  depends  upon  pub- 
lic patronage. 

B.  America  has  the  best  telephone  and  telegraph 
service  in  the  world. 

i.  American  service  is  the  most  extensive. 

a.  Government  owned   systems  in  Eu- 
rope are  far  behind  us  in  telephone 
development. 

(I)  On  our  basis  of  development, 
England  should  have  3,650,000 
instead  of  750,000  telephones. 
(C.  S.  Goldman,  Chairman  of 
Parliament  Telephone  Com- 
mittee, in  loth  Century,  Vol. 

76,  p.  3750 

(II)  Germany  should  have  3,700,- 
ooo  instead  of  950,000. 
(Henry  L.  Webb,  Develop- 
ment of  the  Telephone  in  Eu- 
rope, p.  21.) 

(Ill)  France  should  have  2,500,000 
instead  of  215,000.  (Henry 
L.  Webb,  p.  22.) 

b.  American   rural  development  is  the 
best  in  the  world.     (Henry  L.  Webb, 
Telephone  Development   in  Europe, 
p.  24.) 


182  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

c.  America  has  more  miles  of  telegraph 
wire.     (National     Civic     Federation 
Report,  p.  57.) 

d.  America  has  more  telegraph  stations. 
(Journal  Telegraphiquc,  Vol.  37,  pp. 

104-5.) 

2.  The    extensive    service    makes    the    tele- 
phone  and   telegraph    many   times   more 
valuable  to  Americans. 

a.  Value  increases  with  the  number  of 
people  reached. 

3.  America  has  the  most  reliable  service. 

a.  Telephone  connections  within  reason- 
able   time    can    be    depended    upon. 
(National   Civic  Federation  Report, 
P-  56.) 

(I)  The  facilities  are  adequate. 

(II)  American  facilities  are  on  the 

basis  of  maximum  traffic.    (A. 

N.    Holcombe,    in    Quarterly 

Journal  of  Economics,  Vol.  28, 

P-  5830 

b.  Telephone  service  here  is  not  subject 
to  interruptions. 

(I)  The  equipment  of  the  private 

companies  is  modern. 
(II)  European  systems  are  swamped 
with  complaints  about  discon- 
nection 9.  (French  Budget  for 
Post  and  Telegraphs,  by  M. 
Steeg,  pp.  89-91.) 

c.  There  are  few  errors  in  telegrams. 

(I)  The     operators    are     experi- 
enced. 
(II)  Telegrams  in  Europe  are  un- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  183 

decipherable.  (Item  from  the 
Report  of  the  Italian  Postal 
Telegraph  Clerks  Association 
in  American  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Company's  Briefs, 
C  3d  Item  5.) 

4.  America  has  the  most  continuous  service. 

a.  Telegraph    offices    are    open    longer 
here. 

(I)  19%  of  the  Western  Union 
offices  are  open  day  and  night. 
(Judson,  Government  Owner- 
ship of  Telephones  and  Tele- 
graphs, p.  131.) 

(II)  Few  European  countries  have 
more  than  5%  of  their  offices 
open  continuously.  (Journal 
Telegraphique,  Vol.  37,  p. 

25&) 

b.  American  telephone  exchanges  have 

longer  open  hours. 

(I)  American  exchanges  in  cities 

have  continuous  service. 
(II)  In  Austria  only  i%  are  open 
day  and  night.     (Journal  Tele- 
graphique, Vol.  37,  p.  254.) 

(Ill)  In  Germany  places  under  30,- 
ooo  are  not  given  service  after 
9  p.  M.  (Journal  Telegraphique, 
Vol.  37,  p.  254.)  (National 
Civic  Federation  Report,  p. 

52.) 

5.  America  has  the  most  rapid  service. 

a.  The  average  time  for  telephone  con- 
nections under  the  Bell  system  is  16 


184  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

seconds.     (French  Budget  for  Posts 
and  Telegraphs,  1907,  p.  67.) 

b.  In  Europe  the  time  is  often  13  min- 
utes.    (Bulletin    on    Subscribers    to 
the  Telephone,  1909,  p.  3.)     (Repro- 
duced  in   American    Telephone   and 
Telegraph  Company's  Briefs.) 

c.  Long    distance    connections    are    se- 
cured   more    quickly    here    than    in 
Europe.     (Editorial,      Daily      Mail, 
Dec.  27,  1913.     In  Briefs,  Di,  241.) 

d.  Cross    continent    telegraphs    can    be 
sent  to  and  fro  sooner  than  short  dis- 
tance   ones    in    Europe.     (National 
Civic  Federation  Report,  p.  52.) 

e.  The  Bell  system  has  affected  a  saving 
of  445  years'  time  to  the  people  in  a 
single  year. 

(I)  It  has  reduced  the  time  for 
each  call  by  four  seconds. 
(Current  Opinion,  Vol.  56,  p. 

56.) 

C.  American  rates  are  reasonable. 

i.  The  haul  is  longer  in  the  United  States. 

a.  More   than    90%    of    the    telegraph 
traffic   in   England   is   not   over    150 
miles.     (Judson,    Government    Own- 
ership of  Telephones  and  Telegraphs, 

P-  136.) 

b.  More  than  50%  of  Western  Union 
business  is  over  200  miles  (Judson, 
p.  136.) 

c.  Average    haul    in    Belgium    is    42.5 
miles. 

d.  Less    than    5%    of    Western    Union 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  185 

business  is  under  42.5  miles.     (Jud- 
son,  p.  136.) 

e.  The    average    haul    of    a    Western 
Union  telegram  is  farther  than  the 
maximum  haul  in  some  of  the  Euro- 
pean countries. 

(I)  It  is  570  miles.     (Judson,  p. 

1350 

f.  The    average    haul    of    a    Western 
Union  night  letter  is  1025  miles. 

g.  The  maximum  haul  in  every  country 
except  Russia  is  less  than  1025  miles. 
(Judson,  p.  136.) 

2.  The  quality  of  service  in  America  makes 
American  rates  reasonable. 

a.  Poor  service  is  dear  at  any  price. 

b.  American  service  is  superior  in  every 
way  to  that  of  other  countries. 

c.  The  slightly  lower  cost  of  European 
service  does  not  sufficiently  compen- 
sate for  inferiority. 

3.  In  actual  money  cost,  a  comparison  with 
foreign   rates  is  not  much  in  America's 
disfavor. 

a.  In  American  cities,  from  78  to  94% 
of  subscribers  are  paying  less  than 
foreign  minimum  rates. 

(I)  Average  minimum  rate  abroad 
is  $28.80  for  telephone,  as 
against  $23.17  in  the  United 
States.  (Table  of  telephone 
rate  statistics  in  National  Civic 
Federation  Report,  pp.  53-5.) 

b.  Foreign  domestic  ordinary  telegraph 
rates  approximate  American. 


i86  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

(I)  The  rates  for  a  ten  word  mes- 
sage in  Europe  vary  from  20^ 
to  26^. 

(II)  The  rate  for  a  ten  word  mes- 
sage in  the  United  States  is 
25^-  (Judson,  Government 
Ownership  of  Telephones  and 
Telegraphs,  p.  135.) 

c.  Foreign      domestic      urgent      rates 
(equivalent  to  regular  American  serv- 
ice)   are    considerably    higher    than 
American  rates. 

(I)  Rates  for  similar  number  of 
words  are  sometimes  three 
times  higher  than  American 
rates.  (Judson,  p.  134.) 

d.  Foreign      international      rates      are 
higher.     (American    Telephone    and 
Telegraph   Go's  Report,   Supplement 
No.  9,  p.  15.) 

II.     Government  ownership  of  the  telephones  and  tele- 
graph cannot  secure  better  service  or  lower  rates. 
A.  Government  enterprise  in  a  democracy  is  never 

as  efficient  as  private  enterprise. 
^  I.  It  is  impossible  to  secure  the  same  con- 
tinuity of  policy  under  changing  adminis- 
trations. 

a.  A  design  carefully  thought  out  is 
necessary  in  a  large  and  efficient 
project.  (Extract  from  Report  by 
Wisconsin  State  Board  of  Public 
Affairs  in  American  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Go's  Brief.) 

(I)  It  must  run  through  a  long 
period  of  years. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  187 

(II)  It  must  have  certain  financial 
support. 

(A)  Efficient  development 
of  a  system  requires 
constant  expenditure  of 
capital  years  in  ad- 
vance of  requirements. 
(Henry  L.  Webb  in 
Development  of  the 
Telephone  in  Europe.) 
(Ill)  The  personnel  behind  it  should 

be  the  same. 

b.  Frequent  changes  make  impossible  a 
permanent  plan.  (Sydney  Brooks  in 
North  American  Review,  Vol.  195, 

P-  54i.) 

(I)   Democracies    change    officials 

frequently. 

(II)  New  officials  usually  have  had 
no    connection    with     former 
policy. 
(Ill)  Each  new  official  has  a  plan 

for  the  department. 

C.  Uncertainty  of  appropriations  makes 
definite  planning  impossible. 

(I)  Voting  of  appropriations  is 
governed  by  political  rather 
than  actual  needs.  (A.  Lin- 
coln Lavine  in  Why  Govern- 
ments Fail,  p.  15.) 

(A)  Elaborately      prepared 
estimates     are     tossed 
aside  by  appropriation 
committee. 

(B)  Committee       estimates 


i88  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

are  subject  to  political 
pressure  in  the  legisla- 
ture. 

(II)  A  legislature  may  kill  a  pub- 
lic service  by  failure  to  make 
appropriations.  (A.  Lincoln 
La  vine,  Why  Governments 
Fail,  p.  4.) 

(Ill)  An  executive  may  cut  off 
funds  by  veto. 

d.  Efficient    development    is    impossible 
where  a  free  flow  of  capital  is  re- 
stricted. 

(I)  Development  must  be  a  matter 

of  capital  investment. 
(II)  Capital  in  sufficient  quantities 

is  hard  to  secure. 

(Ill)  The  curse  over  business  is 
political  control.  (Henry  L. 
Webb,  Development  of  Tele- 
phone in  Europe,  p.  19.) 

e.  Private  enterprise  is  subject  to  none 
of  these  conditions. 

(I)  The  policy  is  continuous. 

(A)  The  directors  hold  of- 
fice for  long  terms. 
(II)  Changes    in    actual    business 

heads  are  seldom. 
(Ill)  Appropriations  are   definite. 

(A)  Money  is  voted  by  the 
directors. 

(B)  Needs  for  future  years 
can  be  cared  for. 

(C)  Actual    needs    are    not 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  189 

subject  to  other  influ- 
ences. 

2.  It  is  impossible  to  secure  the  same  effi- 
cient management. 

a.  Officials    hold   office    for    too    short 
terms. 

(I)  It  takes  two  years  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  work. 
(David  C.  Owen,  former 
Post-Master  at  Milwaukee. 
Personal  interview.) 
(II)  They  are  replaced  just  when 
they  become  efficient. 

(A)  England  has  had  eight 
post-master  generals  in 
twenty  years.  (Mr. 
Richard  Burbridge, 
Member  of  Committee 
on  Conditions  of  Em- 
ployment in  the  Post- 
Office,  in  American 
Telephone  and  Tele- 
graph Co's  Briefs  62- 

79-) 

b.  The  best  men  will  not  enter  govern- 
ment      service.     (Sydney       Brooks, 
North  American  Review,  Vol.    195, 

P-  737-) 

(I)  A  government  does  not  assure 

a  secure  position. 
(II)  It  offers  no  hope  of  advance- 
ment. 

(Ill)  Governments  do  not  pay  good 
salaries. 


190  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

(IV)  Better  positions  are  obtained 
in  private  life. 

c.  Political  influences  are  not  kept  out 
of  official  appointments. 

(I)  Offices  are  still  considered  the 

spoils  of  the  victors. 
(II)  Appointments  are  made  in  re- 
turn for  party  services. 

(A)  16,000  new  post-mas- 
ters were  appointed  by 
Wilson  in  the  first 
year.  (Saturday  Eve- 
ning Post,  p.  77,  April 
18,  1914.) 

(Ill)  Education  and  training  are 
not  considered.  (Literary  Di- 
gest, Vol.  44,  p.  146.) 

d.  Private  enterprise  is  the  recognized 
ideal  in  efficient  management. 

(I)  Officials  are  appointed  indefi- 
nitely. 

(II)  Officials  are  chosen  for  busi- 
ness ability. 

(A)  They  are  chosen  from 
those  most  interested 
in  the  enterprise. 
(Sydney  Brooks,  "As- 
pects of  Public  Own- 
ership," North  Ameri- 
can Review,  Vol.  194, 

P-  54I-) 

(Ill)  The  greatest  brains  in  the 
world  go  into  private  enter- 
prise. (Sydney  Brooks,  North 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  191 

American   Review,   Vol.    194, 

P-  54i.) 

(A)  Security     of     position 
attracts     the     brilliant 
young  men. 

(B)  Efficiency     is     almost 
certain    to    bring    ad- 
vancement. 

(C)  Private  life  offers  at- 
tractive salaries. 

3.  It  is  impossible  for  government  depart- 
ments to  act  with  freedom. 

a.  Officials  are  not  clothed  with  plenary 
power. 

(I)  They  rriust  secure  legislative 
approval  before  action. 

(A)  It  took  twenty  years  to 
induce  Congress  to  au- 
thorize the  Parcel  Post. 
( Springfield        Home- 
stead, Oct.  18,  1913.) 
(II)  They  cannot  spend  money  with 
freedom. 

(A)  A  definite  appropria- 
tion must  be  made  for 
every  bit  of  work.  (A. 
Lincoln  Lavine,  Why 
Governments  Fail,  p. 

40 

b.  Officials  are  subject  to  outside  influ- 
ences. 

(I)  Unreasonable  sectional  or 
class  demands  must  be  satis- 
fied. (P.  L.  McVey,  Modern 
Industrialism,  pp.  270-1.) 


192  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

c.  Private  enterprise  has  every  requisite 
to  produce  freedom  of  action. 

(I)  The     officials     possess      full 

power. 

(II)  Action  can  not  be  deferred  by 
the  wranglings  of  a  large 
number. 

(A)  The  body  of  final  au- 
thority is  small. 

(B)  The  interest  of  all  is 
the  same. 

(Ill)  Matters  of  policy  do  not  have 
to  wait  a  year  for  a  legislative 
session. 

(A)  Meetings   for   decisive 

action  are  frequent. 

4.  Government  officials  take  a  wrong  atti- 
tude toward  an  enterprise. 

a.  The  officials  do  not  exert  the  watch- 
fulness of  private  officials.     (Senator 
McCumber,     Cong.    Rec.,    Jan.     19, 
1914.) 

(I)  The   incentive   of   returns   is 
lacking. 

(A)  The    personal    interest 
is  lacking. 

b.  Their  financial  policy  is  one  of  inju- 
dicious extravagance.     (W.  M.  Dan- 
iels in  Public  Finance,  p.  215.) 

(I)  The    interest    on    the    invest- 
ment is  forgotten. 
(II)  There   is   little   disposition   to 

worry  about. 

(Ill)  They  know  the  whole  wealth 
of  the  state  is  behind  them. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  193 

(IV)  Their     operation     is     always 
100%  more  expensive.     (Sen- 
ator McCumber,  Congressional 
Record,  Jan.  19,  1914,  p.  1973.) 
B.  The  inherent  weaknesses  of  government  have 
made  a  failure  of  government  ownership  and 
operation  of  the  telephones  and  telegraphs  in 
Europe. 

I.  The  government  has  not  succeeded  in  giv- 
ing a  standard  of  service  equal  to  private 
service. 

a.  The  appropriation  system  of  govern- 
ment has  produced  a  lack  of  equip- 
ment in  the  European  telephone  and 
telegraph  systems. 

(I)  The  enterprises  are  starved 
because  of  financial  demands 
for  other  purposes.  (P.  L. 
McVey,  Modern  Industrialism, 

P-  215.) 

(II)  The  French  system  is  four 
years  behind  in  equipment. 
(Yves  Guyot,  State  and  Mu- 
nicipal Management,  pp.  349- 

350.) 

(Ill)  The  German  appropriation  is 
no  more  than  in  1904.  (Webb, 
European  Telephone  Develop- 
ment, p.  12.) 

b.  The    appointment    system    has    pro- 
duced inefficient  management. 

(I)  England  has  had  eight  official 
heads  in  the  last  twenty  years. 
(Mr.  Richard  Burbridge, 
Member  of  Parliament  Com- 


194  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

^ 

mittee  on  Conditions  of  Em- 
ployment  in   the   Post   Office. 
American   Telephone  &  Tele- 
graph Go's  Briefs  62-79.) 
(II)   It  is  impossible  in  two  and  a 
half  years  to  become  efficient 
in  a  technical  system. 
C.  Lack    of    equipment    and    inefficient 
management     have     produced     poor 
service. 

(I)   The  service  is  unreliable. 

(A)  Telegrams  do  not   ar- 
rive.    (Report   of   the 
Italian     Postal     Tele- 
graph Clerks  Associa- 
tion,   American    Tele- 
phone   and    Telegraph 
Co's  Briefs,  Ctf,  Item 

5-) 

(B)  Telegrams     arrive     so 
late    they   are   useless. 
(Italian    Postal    Tele- 
graph   Clerks    Ass'n.) 
(News  Item  in  L' Auto- 
Paris,  Aug.  31,  1913-) 

(C)  Telegrams  are  undeci- 
pherable.   (Italian  Pos- 
tal   Telegraph    Clerks 
Ass'n.) 

(D)  Telephones    are    indis- 
tinct.    ( Petition  to  Im- 
perial Postal  Adminis- 
tration.   Briefs,     Di- 
200.) 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  195 

(E)  Conversations    are    in- 
terrupted. 
(II)  Service  is  not  continuous. 

(A)  Both  telephone  and 
telegraph  offices  are 
open  only  part  of  the 
day  in  a  majority  of 
places.  (Judson,  Gov- 
ernment Ownership  of 
the  Telephones  and 
Telegraphs,  p.  134. 

(III)  Service  is  not  extensive. 

(A)  All    France    has    less 
'phones  than   Chicago. 
(New  York  Telephone 
Co.  Bulletin,  p.  27.) 

(B)  All     Russia     has    less 
'phones  than  Philadel- 
phia. (New  York  Tele- 
phone Co.  Bulletin,  p. 
27.) 

(C)  Value  to  the  European 
subscriber  is  ten  times 
less    than    in    United 
States.    (Hugo  Meyer, 
Public  Ownership  and 
the   Telephone  in  Eu- 
rope, p.  361.) 

(IV)  Service  is  slow. 

(A)  Telephone  connections 
in  the  same  city  re- 
quire many  minutes. 
(Buffalo  Times,  Sept. 
9,  1914.  Norman  E. 
Mack.  Report  of 


196  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

French  Budget  for 
Posts  and  Telegraphs 
in  American  Tele- 
phone and  Telegraph 
Go's  Briefs  D 1-237.) 

(B)  Long      distance      con- 
nections require  hours. 
(Herr    Haberland     in 
Briefs,  Di-0,2.) 

(C)  Telegrams   take   hours 
and    days.     ( Editorial 
in    New    York    Press, 
December  23,  1913.) 

(V)  Emphasis  has  been  put  on 
nominally  cheap  rates  rather 
than  service. 

(A)  Administrations     have 
courted   popularity   by 
cheap     rates.     (Henry 
L.  Webb,  Development 
of   the   Telephones  in 
Europe,  p.  67.) 

(B)  The  practice  has  been 
to  let  the  traffic  over- 
whelm the  facilities. 

d.  The  governments  have  not  given  ac- 
tually cheap  rates. 

(I)  The    rates    should    be    very 
cheap,  and 

(A)  The  systems  are  com- 
pact.    (Norvin  Green, 
North    American    Re- 
view, Vol.  149,  p.  569.) 

(B)  Population  is  dense. 

(C)  The   lines  are  located 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  197 

in  an  open  country. 
(D)  The  rates  for  opera- 
tors are  less  than  one- 
half  of  those  paid  oper- 
ators here.  (Norvin 
Green,  North  Ameri- 
can Review,  Vol.  149, 

P-  569-) 
(I)'  The  rates  are  not  cheap. 

(A)  Domestic      rates      are 
only      slightly      lower 
than  American.     (Jud- 
son,  Government  Own- 
ership   of    Telephones 
and      Telegraphs,      p. 

136.) 

(B)  Rates     for     distances 
over  the  maximum  do- 
mestic    distance     are 
higher     than     in     the 
United    States.     (Jud- 
son,  Government  Own- 
ership   of    Telephones 
and      Telegraphs,      p. 
136.) 

2.  Government  ownership  has  not  proved  a 
financial  success. 

a.  Annual    deficits    have    resulted    in 
every  system. 

(I)  The  deficit  in  France  was  $2,- 
160,000.  (Government  Own- 
ership of  Telephones,  p.  8.  M. 
Mannering.) 

(II)  The   deficit   in   Germany  was 
$3,500,000.  (Government  Own- 


198  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ership  of  Telephones,  p.  8.    M. 
Mannering.) 

(Ill)  The    deficit    in    England   was 
$4,700,000.     (Report  of  Post- 
Master  General,  1913,  p.  34.) 
3.  Deficits   in   such   government   enterprises 
are  not  just. 

a.  80%  of  the  telegraph  messages  are 
sent  by  a  small  per  cent  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  (Western  Union  Report, 


b.  All  of  the  people  are  taxed  to  pay 

the  deficits  created  by  the  few. 
C.  The  inherent  defects  of  our  system  of  govern- 
ment will  make  government  operation  of  the 
telephones  and  telegraphs  a  failure. 
i.  Officialdom  brings  irresponsibility. 

a.  There  will  be  no  incentive  to  intro- 
duce    improved     methods.     (North 
American  Review,  Vol.  194,  p.  496. 
Sydney  Brooks.) 

b.  The  absence  of  a  desire  for  gain  will 
bring   no   desire    for   increased   effi- 
ciency. 

c.  Labor  saving  devices  will  not  be  in- 
troduced. 

(I)  Officials  are  not  interested  in 
reducing  the  voting  strength. 
(Sydney  Brooks  in  North 
American  Review,  Vol.  194,  p. 
496.) 

d.  Employees  will  not  suggest  improve- 
ments. 

(I)  No  credit  would  come  to  them. 
(II)  Improvements  have  not  come 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  199 

from  within  the  Post-Office. 
(Ill)  Improvements  in  the  telephone 
and  telegraph  have  originated 
in  the  private  owned  American 
system. 

(A)  Germany  has   adopted 
American     equipment. 
(M.      Mannering      in 
Government       Owner- 
ship, p.  6.) 

(B)  The     English     system 
has  adopted  American 
methods.          (Herbert 
Samuel,        Postmaster 
General  of  England  in 
1914,  in  Parliamentary 
Reports,    June    19,    p. 

52.) 

2.  The  unscientific  non-budget  system  of  ap- 
propriations will  result  in  deterioration  of 
facilities. 

a.  The    non-budget     system    leads    to 
looseness  and  extravagance  in  appro- 
priations.    (Wm.  H.  Taft,  Presiden- 
tial Message,  Jan.  17,  1912.) 

b.  Congress  has  not  shown  itself  capa- 
ble of  scientific  appropriations.     (A. 
T.    Hadley    in    Youth's    Companion, 
April  18,  1912.) 

(I)  Large  amounts  of  public 
money  are  wasted  yearly  on 
unnecessary  improvements  of 
rivers  and  harbors.  (A.  T. 
Hadley,  Youth's  Companion, 
April  18,  1912.) 


200  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

(II)  Much  needed  improvements 
are  neglected.  (A.  T.  Hadley, 
Youth's  Companion,  April  18, 
1912.) 

(Ill)  Congressman  are  more  con- 
cerned with  district  demands 
than  national  needs.  (Fred- 
erick A.  Cleveland,  Chairman 
of  Committee  on  Economy  and 
Efficiency  in  Review  of  Re- 
views, April,  1912.) 

(A)  River  and  harbor  bill 
provided    for   296   out 
of    391     congressional 
districts  in  1910. 

(B)  282  Congressional  dis- 
tricts   received   appro- 
priations in  the  Public 
Building    Bill.     (Her- 
bert Fuller  in  World's 
Work,  Feb.,  1911.) 

c.  The  needs  of  the  telephone  and  tele- 
graph service  will  be  subject  to  the 
political  system  of  appropriations. 
(I)  Not  a  bit  of  work  will  be  pos- 
sible without  appropriations. 
(II)  Appropriations     will     depend 
upon      party      purposes.     (A. 
Lincoln  Lavine,  Why  Govern- 
ments Fail,  p.  4.) 

(Ill)  The  enterprise  will  be  starved 
for  other  demands.  (P.  L. 
McVey  in  Modern  Industrial- 
ism, pp.  270-1.) 

(A)  The  money  that  goes 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  201 

into  the  working  of 
the  telephone  and  tele- 
graph business  makes 
no  display. 

(B)  Public    buildings    give 
something    to    attract 
public  attention  to  suc- 
cessful     congressmen. 
(Herbert      Fuller      in 
World's    Work,    Feb., 
1911.) 

(C)  Army  and  navy  posts 
are  considered  of  sec- 
tional advantage. 

(IV)  The    enterprise    will    deterio- 
rate. 

(A)  The  American  stand- 
ard of  service  is  only 
attainable  by  elaborate 
organization.  (Gov- 
ernment Ownership  of 
Telephones,  p.  8.  By 
M.  Mannering.) 

3.  The  political  system  of  appointment  will 
produce  inefficiency  in  telephone  and  tele- 
graph operation. 

a.  The  management  will  come  into  the 
hands  of  political  appointees. 

(I)  The  telephone  and  telegraph 
system  will  be  used  primarily 
as  a  political  machine. 

(A)  The  Post-Office  is  used 
to  retain  control  in  the 
hands  of  the  party  in 
power.  (Theodore 


202  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

Roosevelt   in   Outlook, 
Vol.  100,  p.  769.) 
(B)  The  221,000  offices  will 
be  a  tempting  field  for 
political      exploitation. 
(National    Civic    Fed- 
eration Report,  p.  22.) 
b.  The  political  appointees  will  be  in- 
efficient men.  - 

(I)  They  will  not  be  appointed  be- 
cause of  training  or  ability. 
(A)   Postmasterships       are 
rewards       for       party 
service.          (Theodore 
Roosevelt   in   Outlook, 
Vol.  100,  p.  769.) 
(II)  The  short  tenure  of  office  will 
not  permit  the  officials  to  be- 
come familiar  with  the  work. 
(A)  The  last  ten  Post-Mas- 
ter Generals  could  not 
at    the    completion    of 
their     term     tell     the 
schedule  of  postal  tar- 
iffs.    (American  Tele- 
phone   and    Telegraph 
Go's  Supplement  9.) 
(Ill)  The  post-office  shows  the  in- 
efficiency     of      political      ap- 
pointees. 

(A)  The  post-office  is  the 
simplest  of  operations, 
and  (Henry  A.  Castle, 
Survey,  1912) 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  203 

(1)  The     risks     in- 
volved   in    the 
ordinary  process 
of  trade  are  ab- 
sent. 

(2)  The   investment 
of     capital     is 
small.    ( Nation- 
al Civic  Feder- 
ation Report.) 

(A) 'Inefficiency  is  seen  in 
every  operation. 

1 I )  The       railroads 
are       receiving 
excess     pay. 
(Henry  A.  Cas- 
tle,  former  au- 
ditor     of      the 
Post    -    Office, 
Survey,    1912.) 

(2)  The    free    mail 
privilege          is 
abused.  (Henry 
A.  Castle,  Ibid.) 

(3)  Second    -    class 
mail  constitutes 
70%  of  the  ton- 
nage, and 

(3) 'It  yields  but  i% 
of  the  revenue. 
(Henry  Castle, 
Ibid.) 

(4)  The   rural   mail 
service     is     on 
a     poor     basis. 


204  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

(Henry    Castle, 
Ibid.) 

III.  Possible  nominally  low  rates  under  government  own- 
ernship  and  operation  will  offer  no  actual  advan- 
tages. 

A.  The  rates  may  not  be  actually  cheap. 

1.  A  big  deficit  will  result. 

a.  The  post-office  deficit  since  1865  has 
amounted  to  248,000,000.  (Report  of 
the  Auditor  for  the  post-office  de- 
partments in  Postmaster  General's 
Report  for  year  ending  June  30,  1912, 

P-  355-) 

2.  Taxation  for  the  deficit  may  produce  ac- 
tually high  rates. 

a.  The  deficit  must  be  met  by  indirect 
taxation. 

b.  Indirect     taxation     will     sometimes 
make  government  rates  higher  than 
private  rates.     (Frederick  A.  Ogg  in 
Lecture  on  government  ownership.) 

B.  Low  rates  will  be  no  compensation   for  the 
inferior  service. 

1.  The  public  in  the  long  run  always  de- 
mands service  first. 

2.  The  dissatisfaction  in  Europe  is  because 
rates  have  been  put  before  service. 

C.  The  deficit  for  telegraph  and  telephone  service 

will  be  unjust. 

i.  It  will  fall  on  more  non-users  than  users. 
a.  80%  of  the  telegrams  are  sent  by  a 
small     per     cent     of     the     people. 
(Western  Union  Report,  1913.) 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  205 


CONCLUSION 

I.    The  negative  have  shown  the  following: 

A.  There  is  no  great  dissatisfaction  with  the  pres- 
ent system  of  private  ownership  and  operation. 

1.  Popular   demand   is   not   sufficient   for   a 
radical  change  to  government  ownership. 

2.  America  has  the  best  telephone  and  tele- 
graph service  in  the  world. 

3.  American  rates  are  reasonable. 

B.  Government  ownership  and  operation  cannot 
secure  better  service. 

1.  Government  ownership  in  a  democracy  is 
never  as  efficient  as  private  enterprise. 

2.  The  inherent  weaknesses  of  government 
have    made    a     failure    of    government 
ownership  and  operation  of  the  telephones 
and  telegraphs  in  Europe. 

3.  The   inherent   defects  of   our   system   of 
government  will  make  government  owner- 
ship and  operation  of  the  telephones  and 
telegraphs  a  failure. 

C.  Possible   nominally   low   rates   under   govern- 
ment  ownership  will   offer  no  actual  advan- 
tages. 

1.  The  rates  may  not  actually  be  cheap. 

2.  The  low  rates  will  be  no  compensation  for 
the  inferior  service. 

3.  The  deficit  will  be  unjust. 

II.  We  therefore  conclude  that  the  federal  government 
should  not  own  and  operate  all  public  service  tele- 
phone and  telegraph  lines. 


APPENDIX  C 
(A  student's  brief,  outline,  and  speech) 

i.  A  STUDENT'S  BRIEF 
BY  E.  A.  MOFFATT 

Resolved:  that  the  federal  income  tax  exemption  limit 
should  be  lowered  by  at  least  one  thousand  dollars. 

INTRODUCTION 
(Affirmative) 

I.  The  question  of  lowering  the  federal  income  tax  ex- 
emption limit  has  recently  been  agitated. 

A.  Many  people  feel  that  the  present  system  has 

not  been  a  financial  success. 

B.  Others  believe  that  the  principle  of  the  high 

exemption  is  wrong. 

II.  The  following  historical  facts  are  of  interest  in  con- 
sidering the  present  system  : 

A.  A  federal  income  tax  was  in  operation  during 

the  Civil  War. 

B.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  in  1894  to 

revive  the  income  tax. 

C.  The  present  law  went  into  effect  in  October, 


III.  The  following  features  of  the  present  income  tax 
should  be  understood  in  order  to  discuss  the  propo- 
sition : 

A.  A  tax  of  one  per  cent,  is  levied  on  all  incomes 
over  $4,000,  in  the  case  of  married  people. 
206 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  207 

B.  The  exemption  is  $3,000  for  unmarried  people. 

C.  An  additional  tax  is  levied  on  incomes  ex- 

ceeding $20,000: 

i.  A  tax  of  1%  is  levied  on  incomes  be- 
tween $20,000  and  $50,000,  2%  be- 
tween $50,000  and  $75,000,  3% 
between  $75,000  and  $100,000,  4% 
between  $100,000  and  $250,000,  5% 
between  $250,000  and  $500,000,  and 
of  6%  on  all  incomes  exceeding 
$500,000.  (Political  Science  Quar- 
terly, March,  1914,  p.  16.) 

D.  A  person's  taxable  income  is  obtained  by  de- 

ducting from  his  income  from1  all  sources 
the  following  items:  Taxes,  interest  on  in- 
debtedness, losses  sustained  in  business,  bad 
debts,  expenses  of  carrying  on  business,  a 
reasonable  allowance  for  wear  and  tear  on 
property,  and  dividends  from  the  stock  of 
corporations. 

IV.  Certain  facts  will  be  ignored  as  being  irrelevant  to 
this  discussion: 

A.  Provisions  relating  to  the  tax  on  corporations 

will  be  ignored. 

B.  The  "  collection  at  the  source  "  principle  will 

be  ignored. 
V.  The  issues  are  as  follows: 

A.  Does  the  present  system  discriminate  unjustly 

against  those  people  whose  incomes  bring 
them  under  this  tax? 

B.  Is  the  proposed  change  financially  advisable? 

C.  Is  the  proposed  plan  just? 

VI.  The  affirmative  will  attempt  to  establish  its  case  by 
proving  the  following  points: 
A.  The  present  system  is  a  class  tax. 


208  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

'B.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based 
upon  the  wrong  principle. 

C.  The  present  system  is  financially  unsatisfac- 

tory. 

D.  The  proposed  system  will  advantageously  in- 

crease the  revenues  of  the  government. 

E.  The  proposed  system  is  just. 

DISCUSSION 

I.  The  present  system  is  a  class  tax,  for 

A.  It  is  "  essentially  class  legislation/'  for 

i.  "  Such  discriminations  (as  exist  in  a 
tax  of  this  sort)  lead  to  oppression 
and  abuses,  and  general  unrest  and 
disturbance  in  society."  (Philip  S. 
Post  in  Outlook,  March  2,  1907,  pp. 
503-8,  quoted  in  Phelps'  Selected 
Articles  on  the  Income  Tax,  p.  106.) 

B.  It  is  a  tax  on  the  rich,  for 

1.  It    is    "  a    tribute    on    surplus    wealth 

which  requires  extra  expense."  (E. 
R.  A.  Seligman  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  March,  1914,  p.  12.) 

2.  A  prominent  supporter  of  the  tax  ad- 

mits that  it  is  a  tax  on  the  rich,  for 

a.  He  states  that   there   is  much 

truth  at  the  basis  of  the  claim 
that  it  is  a  class  tax  on  the 
rich.  (Roy  G.  Blakey,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economics  at  Cor- 
nell University,  in  Outlook, 
January  31,  1914,  pp.  256- 
260.) 

b.  His  argument  to  offset  this  fact 

is  weak  for 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  209 

(I)  He  states  that  the  new 
tariff  is  a  tax  on  the 
poor,  and  that  this 
offsets  the  other 
fact.  (Outlook, Jan- 
uary 31,  1914,  pp. 
256-260.) 

C.  It   is   a   tax   on   industry   and  commerce   as 
against  agriculture,  for 

1.  The  farmer  makes  no  return  on  what 

he  consumes  of  his  own  production, 
in  contrast  to  others  who  must  make 
a  return  on  their  living  expenses, 
for 

a.  The  act  says  that  living  ex- 
penses may  not  be  deducted. 
(Mortimer  L.  Schiff  in  An- 
nals of  the  American  Acad- 
emy, March,  1915,  pp.  I5-31-) 

2.  Professor  Blakey  admits  that  there  is 

much  truth  at  the  basis  of  this 
claim.  (Outlook,  January  31,  1914, 
P.  257.) 

II.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based  upon 
the  wrong  principle,  for 

A.  It  touches  far  too  small  a  part  of 'the  popula- 
tion, for 

1.  In   the   period   ending   December   31, 

1913,  only  357,598  people  paid  the 
tax,  or  less  than  one-half  of  one  per 
cent,  of  the  total  population. 

2.  Considering  families  as  composed  of 

five  people,  only  one  and  one-half 
per  cent,  of  the  population  paid. 
(Mortimer  L.  Schiff  in  Annals  of 


210  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

the     American     Academy,     March, 

1915,  PP-  I5-3I.) 

B.  It  is   much   higher  than  that  of   any   other 

country,  for 

1.  In  Prussia  the  exemption  is  900  marks, 

or  $214,  with  a  rising  percentage  of 
taxation  as  the  income  increases. 
(K.  K.  Kennan,  Income  Taxation, 
Methods  and  Results  in  Various 
Countries,  pp.  86-106.) 

2.  A  proposed  French  system  was  planned 

on  the  basis  of  exempting  about  $240. 
(K.  K.  Kennan,  Income  Taxation, 

PP.  7S-85-) 

3.  The  Austrian  exemption  is  $240,  with 

a  rising  rate  of  taxation  as  the  in- 
come increases,  and  with  a  certain 
system  of  small  abatements,  irrele- 
vant to  this  discussion.  (K.  K. 
Kennan,  Income  Taxation,  pp.  35- 

44.) 

4.  In  the  English  system  before  the  pres- 

ent war,  the  exemption  was  placed 
at  approximately  $778,  as  contrasted 
with  two  earlier  systems  which 
placed  the  exemption  at  $292,  and 
$500,  respectively.  (K.  K.  Kennan, 
Income  Taxation,  pp.  58-74.) 

C.  The  use  of  the  "  minimum  of  comfortable  ex- 

istence "  as  a  basis  for  the  exemption  is 
undesirable,  for 

i.  This  cannot  be  determined  to  the  satis- 
faction of  everyone,  for 
a.  The  great  mass  of  Americans 
do  not  expect  to  give  their 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  211 

children  a  college  education, 
as  is  urged  in  support  of  the 
high  exemption.  (E.  R.  A. 
Seligman  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  March,  1914,  pp. 
1-27.) 

2.  It  violates  the  rule  laid  down  by  Adam 

Smith  in  his  Wealth  of  Nations,  for 
a.  He  states  that  the  subjects  of  a 
state  should  contribute  ac- 
cording to  their  abilities,  that 
is,  according  to  the  income 
enjoyed  under  the  protection 
of  the  state.  (M.  L.  Scruff, 
in  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March,  1915,  p. 
16.) 

3.  Other  writers  than  Adam  Smith  sup- 

port the  same  view,  for 

a.  David    Ames    Wells    says   that 

citizens  should  contribute  in 
proportion  to  their  revenue. 
(In  the  Forum,  March,  1894, 
PP-  J-3>  quoted  in  Phelps: 
Selected  Articles  on  the  In- 
come Tax,  p.  6 1.) 

b.  The  burden  of  taxation  should 

be  according  to  the  service 
that  the  state  renders  to  the 
individual.  (Outlook,  Octo- 
ber 16,  1909,  pp.  32^-9.) 

4.  It  classes  non-payers  as  paupers  in  the 

eyes  of  the  government,  for 
a.  The    exemption    of    $4000    as- 
sumes that  a  citizen   should 


212  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 


be  worth  $80,000,  using  a 
very  fair  rate  of  interest. 

b.  Non-payers  of  the  tax  receive 

the  same  benefits  from  the 
state  that  those  who  pay  re- 
ceive, without  the  personal 
realization  of  having  a  stake 
in  the  government.  ( World's 
Work,  March,  1916,  pp. 
481-2.) 

c.  Authorities   support   this   view, 

for 

(I)  "Any  exemption  is  an 

act  of  charity  by  the 
government."  (D.  A. 
Wells  in  Forum, 
March,  1894,  pp.  i- 
13,  quoted  in  Phelps : 
Selected  Articles,  p. 
61.) 

(II)  Unless    every    citizen 

pays  something  to 
the  government  he  is 
"  put  in  the  con- 
scious position  of  a 
pauper  of  the  gov- 
ernment." (Philip  S. 
Post  in  Outlook, 
March  2,  1907,  pp. 
503-8,  quoted  in 
Phelps,  p.  1 06.) 

(III)  It   is   "  quite    proper 
that     every     citizen 
who  is  not  a  beggar 
should     pay     some- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  213 

thing  for  the  main- 
tenance of  his  gov- 
ernment." (Review 
of  Reviews,  May, 
1913,  p.  524.) 

5.  The  use  of  this  rule  as  a  basis  for  ex- 
emption may  produce  undesirable  re- 
sults, for 

a.  As  the  demand  for  revenue  in- 

creases, the  government  is 
apt  to  tax  those  already  taxed 
more,  instead  of  taxing  other 
people.  (Mortimer  L.  SchifY, 
in  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March,  1915,  p. 

17.) 

b.  Legislators,    by    not   hesitating 

to  tax  certain  people  more, 
will  be  lead  to  extravagance. 
(Mortimer  L.  Schiff,  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy, 
March,  1915,  p.  17.) 

c.  The  great  mass  of  people  will 

be  liable  to  take  little  interest 
in  the  governmental  extrava- 
gance, for 

(I)  They  will  pay  none  of 
the  new  tax  if  it  is 
levied  on  the  same 
people.  (R.  G. 

Blakey  in  Outlook, 
January  31,  1914,  pp. 
256-60.) 

D.  A  figure  more  nearly  approaching  the  "  mini- 
mum of  subsistence,"  such  as  would  exist 


214  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

under  the  proposed  plan,  is  desirable  for  the 
exemption  limit,  for 

1.  Other  income  tax  laws  and  proposed 

laws  had  (or  have)   a  much  lower 
exemption  than  this  law,  for 

a.  The  law  of  1861  had  an  exemp- 

tion of  $800;  that  of  1862  an 
exemption  of  $600;  that  of 
1867  an  exemption  of  $1000; 
that  of  1870  an  exemption  of 
$2000. 

b.  The  Wisconsin  income  tax  law 

has  an  exemption  of  $800  for 
the  individual,  $1200  for  hus- 
band and  wife,  and  $200  ad- 
ditional for  each  child  under 
18  years,  or  other  dependent 
person.  (Thomas  E.  Lyons, 
Wisconsin  Tax  Commission, 
in  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March  1915,  pp. 
77-86.) 

2.  Authorities  recognize  the  validity  of 

this  principle,  for 

a.  "  The  exemption   of  a  certain 

minimum  income  (the  '  mini- 
mum of  subsistence ')  is  rec- 
ognized in  most  fiscal  sys- 
tems." (Benjamin  Taylor  in 
Quarterly  Review,  April, 
1907,  pp.  137-140,  quoted  in 
Phelps:  Selected  Articles  on 
the  Income  Tax,  p.  138.) 

b.  "  J.  S.  Mill,  who  has  contended 

so  ably  for  the  soundness  of 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  215 

the  principle  of  the  income 
tax,  says  that  the  amount  re- 
quired for  the  necessities  of 
life  ...  should  be  exempt 
from  taxation."  (George  A. 
Butler  in  New  Englander, 
January,  1891,  quoted  in 
Phelps:  Selected  Articles  on 
the  Income  Tax,  p.  88.) 
c.  "  Owing  to  the  comparative 
equality  of  fortunes  (in  the 
United  States)  the  exemp- 
tion, if  any  exemption  is  to 
be  permitted,  should  be  ex- 
tremely low."  (D.  A.  Wells, 
in  North  American  Review, 
March,  1880,  quoted  in 
Phelps:  Selected  Articles  on 
the  Income  Tax,  p.  92.) 
3.  Prominent  authorities  favor  the  re- 
duction of  the  exemption  limit  in  the 
present  system,  for 

a.  Mortimer  L.  Schiff  recommends 

that  the  exemption  be  re- 
duced to  such  a  figure  as  to 
make  only  those  exempt  who 
have  substantially  no  source 
of  income,  except  their 
wages.  (Annals  of  the 
American  Academy,  March, 

1915,  PP.  I5-3L) 

b.  E.  R.  A.   Seligman,  Professor 

of  Political  Economy  at  Co- 
lumbia University,  a  sup- 
porter of  the  present  system, 


216  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

admits  that  the  "  controlling 
reasons  for  so  high  an  ex- 
emption were  primarily  po- 
litical." (Political  Science 
Quarterly,  March,  1914,  p. 
12.) 

c.  R.  G.  Blakey,  a  very  ardent 
supporter  of  the  existing  law, 
stated  in  1913  that  those  with 
incomes  down  to  $2000  should 
report  them,  and  that  "  in  an- 
other year  or  two  the  exemp- 
tion should  be  lowered." 
(Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March,  1915,  pp. 

32-43-) 
III.  The  present  system  is  financially  unsatisfactory,  for 

A.  It  fails  to  provide  the  expected  return,  for 

1.  The  net  return  for  the  first  fiscal  year 

of  the  tax  brought  in  only  $31,000,- 
ooo,  or  about  $23,000,000  less  than 
was  estimated.  (Journal  of  Politi- 
cal Economy,  July,  1914,  pp.  696- 
698.) 

2.  Succeeding  years  have  failed  to  raise 

the  amount  which  was  hoped  for. 

3.  This  failure  has  been  expressed  by  the 

recent  agitation  for  a  reduction  of 
the  exemption. 

B.  A  supporter  of  the  present  system  admits  that 

it  is  financially  unsatisfactory,  for 

i.  R.  G.  Blakey  says  that  the  "receipts 
were  disappointing."  (Annals  of 
the  American  Academy,  March, 
P-  330 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  217 

2.  The  reason  he  gives  for  not  lowering 
the  exemption  to  increase  the  reve- 
nue, "  because  it  would  arouse  influ- 
ential opposition,"  is  weak,  for  (An- 
nals   of    the    American    Academy, 
March,  1915,  p.  34) 
a.  The   true   democratic   form   of 
government  will  not  be  dic- 
tated  to   by   an   "  influential 
opposition." 

IV.  The  proposed  system  will  advantageously  increase  the 
revenues  of  government,  for 

A.  R.  G.  Blakey  admits  that  there  are  a  great 

number  of  incomes  just  within  the  present 
system's  exemption,  which  would  be  reached 
by  the  proposed  change,  for 

1.  He  says  that  a  reduction  of  just  $200 

would  catch  a  great  number  of  peo- 
ple. (Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March,  1915,  p.  35.) 

2.  He  grants  that  a  reduction  of  $1000 

might  include  as  many  more  people 
as  now  make  a  return.  (Annals  of 
the  American  Academy,  March, 

1915,  P.  36.) 

B.  The  Wisconsin  state  income  tax  shows  the 

satisfactory  financial  returns  where  a  lower 

exemption  exists,  for 

i.  This  tax,  based  on  the  exemption  of 
$1800  for  a  family  of  five,  has  re- 
turned about  $4,000,000  a  year  gross, 
and  over  $2,000,000  a  year  net, 
which  is  one  twenty-fifth  of  all  that 
the  United  States  income  tax  re- 
turns in  all  states.  (T.  E.  Lyons  in 


218  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy, 
March,  1915,  pp.  77-86.) 

C.  If  the  United  States  applied  the  British  peace 
rates,  such  as  existed  before  the  war,  to 
only  such  incomes  as  are  likely  to  be  taxed 
by  a  reduction,  we  would  enormously  in- 
crease the  return  from  the  tax,  for 

i.  We  would  then  raise  about  $250,000,- 
ooo  a  year,  which  is  $200,000,000 
more  than  we  now  get.  (Every- 
body's Magazine,  October,  1916,  p. 
512.) 
V.  The  proposed  system  is  just,  for 

A.  Opponents  of  the  proposed  change  do  not  base 

their   arguments   on   the   injustice   of   the 
change,  for 

1.  They  oppose   change   because  of  the 

easier  administration  of  a  fewer 
number  of  incomes.  (Outlook,  Jan- 
uary 31,  1914,  pp.  256-160.) 

2.  They  fear  to  arouse  "  influential  oppo- 

sition." (Annals  of  the  American 
Academy,  March,  1915,  p.  34.) 

B.  The  increased  percentage  of  the  population 

paying  the  tax  will  benefit  by  the  change, 
for 

1.  They  will  feel  that  they  have  a  per- 

sonal stake  in  the  government. 

2.  They  will  resist  extravagance  in  the 

government,  for 

a.  They  will  be  the  ones  affected 
by  extravagance. 

C.  The  use  of  an  amount  more  nearly  approach- 

ing the  "  minimum  of  subsistence  "  as  the 
exemption  limit  is  just,  for 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  219 

1.  It  has  proved  satisfactory  in  the  Wis- 

consin state  income  tax  law. 
(Annals  of  the  American  Academy, 
March,  1915,  pp.  77-86.) 

2.  This  basis  has  been  sanctioned  by  use 

in  the  past,  for 

a.  The  minimum  of  subsistence 
has  been  recognized  in  most 
fiscal  systems.  (Benjamin 
Taylor  in  Quarterly  Review, 
April,  1907,  quoted  in  Phelps, 
p.  138.) 

3.  The  eminent  economist  J.  S.  Mill  ad- 

vocated exempting  the  amount  re- 
quired for  the  necessities  of  life. 
(Phelps'  Selected  Articles,  p.  88.) 

4.  This  amount  can  be  determined  to  a 

greater  degree  of  accuracy  than  can 
the  "  minimum  of  comfortable  exist- 
ence," or  any  other  like  basis  for  the 
exemption. 

CONCLUSION 

I.  The  affirmative  has  proved  the  following  points: 

A.  The  present  system  is  a  class  tax,  for 

1.  It  is  "  essentially  class  legislation." 

2.  It  is  a  tax  on  the  rich. 

3.  It  is  a  tax  on  industry  and  commerce 

as  against  agriculture. 

B.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based 

upon  the  wrong  principle,  for 

1.  It  touches  far  too  small  a  part  of  the 

population. 

2.  It  is  much  ^higher  than  that  of   any 

other  country. 


220  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

3.  The   use  oi   the  "  minimum  of  com- 

fortable existence "  as  a  basis  for 
the  exemption  is  undesirable. 

4.  A  figure  more  nearly  approaching  the 

"  minimum  of  subsistence,"  such  as 
would  exist  under  the  proposed 
plan,  is  desirable  for  the  exemption 
limit. 

C.  The  present  system  is  financially  unsatisfac- 

tory, for 

1.  It  fails  to  provide  the  expected  return. 

2.  A  supporter  of  the  present  system  ad- 

mits that  it  is  financially  unsatisfac- 
tory. 

D.  The  proposed  system  will  advantageously  in- 

crease the  revenues  of  government,  for 

1.  R.  G.  Blakey  admits  that  there  are  a 

great  number  of  incomes  just  within 
the  present  system's  exemption, 
which  would  be  reached  by  the  pro- 
posed change. 

2.  The  Wisconsin  state  income  tax  shows 

the  satisfactory  financial  returns 
where  a  lower  exemption  exists. 

3.  If  the  United  States  applied  the  Brit- 

ish peace  rates,  such  as  existed  be- 
fore the  war,  to  only  such  incomes 
as  are  likely  to  be  taxed  by  a  reduc- 
tion, we  would  enormously  increase 
the  return  from  the  tax. 

E.  The  proposed  system  is  just,  for 

1.  Opponents  of  the  proposed  change  do 

not  base  their  arguments  on  the  in- 
justice of  the  change. 

2.  The  increased  percentage  of  the  popu- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  221 

lation  paying  the  tax  will  benefit  by 
the  change. 

3.  The  use  of  an  amount  more  nearly  ap- 
proaching the  "  minimum  of  subsist- 
ence "  as  the  exemption  limit  is  just. 
II.  The  affirmative  therefore  maintains  that  the  federal 
income  tax  exemption  limit  should  be  lowered  by  at 
least  one  thousand  dollars. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"Income  Taxation:  Methods  and  Results  in  Various  Coun- 
tries," by  Kossuth  K.  Kennan.  (Burdick  and  Allen,  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.,  1910.) 

"  Selected  Articles  on  the  Income  Tax,  with  Special  Reference 
to  Gradation  and  Exemption,"  by  Edith  M.  Phelps. 
(2d  Edition,  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn., 
1911.) 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy,  March,  1915. 

"Amending  the  Federal  Income  Tax,"  by  R.  G.  Blakey; 

PP-  32-43- 
"  Newer  Tendencies  in  American  Taxation,"  by  E.  R.  A. 

Seligman;  pp.  i-n. 
"  Some  Aspects   of  the   Income   Tax,"   by   Mortimer   L. 

Schiff;  pp.  15-31. 
"  The  Wisconsin  Income  Tax,"  by  T.  E.  Lyons ;  pp.  77-86. 

Everybody's  Magazine,  October,    1916. 

"What  a  British  Income  Tax  Would  Do  to  Us";  p.  512. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy,  July,  1914. 

"The  Yield  of  the  Income  Tax";   pp.  696-698. 

Outlook,  October  16,  1909,  pp.  328-329. 

Outlook,  April  19,   1913. 

"The  Income  Tax";  pp.  848-851. 

Outlook,  January  31,   1914. 

"The   Income  Tax   Exemption,"   by   R.   G.   Blakey;   pp. 
256-60. 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  March,  1914. 

"  The  Federal  Income  Tax,"  by  E.  R.  A.  Seligman ;  pp. 
1-27. 

Review  of  Reviews,  May,  1913. 

"  Graduation  of  Income  Rates  " ;  p.  523. 


222  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

"  European   and   American   Contrasts " ;   p.   524. 
World's  Work,  March,  1916. 

"The  Income  Tax  Stands";  pp.  481-482. 


2.  OUTLINE  OF  A  SPEECH  ON  "  THE  FEDERAL 
INCOME  TAX  " 

Central  theme.    The  federal  income  tax  exemption  limit 

should  be  lowered  by  at  least  one  thousand  dollars. 
Purpose.    To  present  the  above  proposition  to  a  student 
organization,  which  would  be  interested  chiefly  in  the 
social  need  of  lowering  the  exemption. 
Introduction.     (Purpose:     Adaptation  to  audience.) 
I.  This  student  organization  is  interested  in  the  social 
aspects  of  the  recent  agitation  for  a  lower  exemp- 
tion limit. 

II.  Certain  facts  are  necessary  for  an  understanding  of 
the  discussion. 

A.  Several  attempts  were  made  before  the  pres- 

ent law  was  passed. 

B.  Provisions  of  the  present  law. 
III.  The  following  points  will  be  taken  up: 

A.  The  present  tax,  with  the  high  exemption,  is 

class  tax. 

B.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based 

upon  an  undesirable  principle. 

C.  The  proposed  exemption  limit  is  based  upon  a 

desirable  principle. 

D.  The  proposed  plan  is  entirely  just. 
Discussion.     (Purpose:     To  prove  the  central  theme.) 

I.  The  present  tax,  with  the  high  exemption,  is  a  class 
tax. 

A.  It  is  a  tax  on  the  rich. 

B.  It  is  a  tax  on   industry   and  commerce,   as 

against  agriculture. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  223 

II.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based  upon 
an  undesirable  principle. 

A.  It  is  higher  than  that  of  any  other  country. 

B.  It  permits  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  popu- 

lation to  be  reached  directly  by  the  tax. 

C.  The  "  minimum  of  comfortable  existence  "  as 

a  basis  for  the  exemption  is  undersirable. 

III.  The  proposed  exemption  limit  is  based  upon  a  desir- 

able principle. 

A.  Authorities  favor  the  use  of  an  amount  more 

nearly  approaching  the  "  minimum  of  sub- 
sistence." 

B.  Supporters  of  the  tax  favor  a  lower  exemp- 

tion. 

IV.  The  proposed  plan  is  entirely  just. 

A.  Each  individual  paying  the  tax  will  be  bene- 

fited. 

B.  The  country  as  a  whole  will  be  benefited. 
Conclusion.     (Purpose:    To  sum  up  and  drive  home  the 

argument.) 
I.  The  following  facts  have  been  shown: 

A.  The  present  tax,  with  the  high  exemption,  is 

a  class  tax. 

B.  The  exemption  of  the  present  system  is  based 

upon  an  undesirable  principle. 

C.  The  proposed  exemption  limit  is  based  upon  a 

desirable  principle. 

D.  The  proposed  plan  is  entirely  just. 

II.  The  members  of  this  organization  can  exert  a  strong 
influence  toward  securing  a  reduction  of  at  least 
one  thousand  dollars  in  the  federal  income  tax  ex- 
emption limit. 


224  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

3.  SPEECH,  THE  FEDERAL  INCOME  TAX 

This  opportunity  of  addressing  your  society  is  some- 
thing for  which  I  am  very  grateful.  Such  an  organiza- 
tion as  you  have  recently  perfected  comes  as  a  welcome 
sign  that,  despite  the  words  of  a  good  many  critics,  our 
American  colleges  and  universities  do  give  students  an 
opportunity  of  broadening  their  knowledge  of  life  through 
contact  with  new  ideas  and  new  speakers  to  present  them. 
You  are  all  students  of  society ;  and,  as  such,  you  must  be 
vitally  interested  in  the  social  aspects  of  some  of  our  great 
institutions.  This  evening  I  wish  to  bring  before  you  a 
few  thoughts  in  regard  to  our  federal  income  tax,  particu- 
larly with  reference  to  the  social  need  of  lowering  the 
present  exmption  limit. 

Our  federal  income  tax,  as  most  of  you  undoubtedly 
know,  came,  after  a  struggle  of  several  decades,  to  be 
placed  on  the  statute  books  in  October,  1913.  Previous  to 
this  there  had  been  a  great  deal  of  discussion  regarding 
the  constitutionality  and  the  advisability  of  enacting  such 
a  law.  A  tax  of  this  sort  was  actually  in  operation  dur- 
ing the  Civil  War  as  an  emergency  measure.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  revive  this  in  1894,  but,  the  law  was  declared 
unconstitutional.  But  with  the  last  agitation  about  the 
matter,  a  consitutional  amendment  was  carried  and  the 
present  law  went  into  effect. 

The  law  provides  that  a  tax  of  one  per  cent,  be  levied 
on  all  incomes  exceeding  $4000  in  the  case  of  married 
people;  and  on  incomes  exceeding  $3000  in  the  case  of 
unmarried  people.  An  additional  tax  is  levied  on  incomes 
exceeding  $20,000,  with  the  rate  increasing  as  the  incomes 
grow  larger,  but  this  fact  and  also  a  few  provisions  relat- 
ing to  the  collection  of  incomes  at  the  source,  the  tax  on 
corporations,  and  a  few  others,  I  shall  ignore  tonight, 
since  they  are  irrelevant  to  this  particular  discussion.  A 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  225 

person's  taxable  income  is  obtained  by  deducting  from  his 
income  from  all  sources  taxes,  interest  on  indebtedness, 
losses  sustained  in  business,  bad  debts,  expenses  of  carry- 
ing on  the  business,  a  reasonable  allowance  for  wear  and 
tear  on  property,  and  dividends  from  the  stock  of  cor- 
porations. With  these  facts  in  mind  let  us  consider  four 
propositions  which  will  show  the  social  need  of  lowering 
the  exemption  limit:  (i)  The  present  tax,  with  the  high 
exemption,  is  a  class  tax;  (2)  The  exemption  of  the  pres- 
ent system  is  based  upon  an  undesirable  principle;  (3) 
The  proposed  exemption  limit  is  based  upon  a  desirable 
principle;  and  (4)  The  proposed  plan  is  entirely  just. 

Now  what  evidence  is  there  to  support  the  claim  that 
this  is  a  class  tax  which,  as  Philip  S.  Post  declared  in  the 
Outlook,  will  "  lead  to  oppression  and  abuses,  and  general 
unrest  and  disturbance  in  society  "  ?  It  is  plainly  a  tax  on 
the  rich.  How  many  of  us  here  tonight  pay  it?  Very 
few,  I  dare  say,  expect  to  pay  this  tax  until  they  've  been 
out  of  college  for  quite  a  while.  Yes,  it  is  admitted  by 
supporters  of  the  system  that  it  falls  only  upon  the  rich ; 
a  tribute  on  surplus  wealth,  as  Professor  Seligman  says. 
And  Professor  Blakey  would  offset  his  admission  of  the 
fact  by  claiming  that  the  new  tariff,  being  a  tax  on  the 
poor,  should  balance  this ;  two  wrongs  to  make  a  right ! 

Furthermore,  as  it  now  reads,  the  tax  is  on  industry  and 
commerce,  as  against  agriculture.  The  farmer  is  per- 
mitted to  make  no  return  on  what  he  consumes  of  his  own 
production;  but  the  city  man  is  allowed  no  deduction  for 
living  expenses,  another  case  of  discrimination  as  Pro- 
fessor Blakey  again  admits. 

My  second  proposition  is  that  the  exemption  of  the  pres- 
ent system  is  based  upon  an  undesirable  principle.  Com- 
pare it  a  moment  with  that  of  other  countries;  in  Prussia 
the  exemption  is  $214;  a  proposed  French  system  was 
$240;  Austria  exempts  $240;  and  England's  exemption 


226  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

before  the  war  was  $778,  as  contrasted  with  two  earlier 
English  systems  which  put  the  limit  at  $292  in  one  case, 
and  at  $500  in  the  other.  Think  of  it!  Most  of  these 
countries,  where  the  income  tax  is  a  fixed  institution  and 
where  the  best  of  thought  has  been  given  to  the  subject 
exempt  an  amount  which  is  one-twelfth  as  great  as  our 
lowest  exemption. 

Why,  what  percentage  of  our  population  do  you  think 
is  reached  by  our  tax?  In  the  period  ending  December 
31,  1913,  only  357,598  people  paid  the  tax,  less  than  one- 
half  of  one  per  cent,  of  our  total  population.  And  later 
years  have  failed  to  show  the  expected  increase  in  this 
number.  Clearly,  too  small  a  part  of  our  population  pay 
the  tax. 

Advocates  of  the  high  exemption  declare  that  it  is  cor- 
rectly based  upon  "  the  minimum  of  comfortable  exist- 
ence," and  place  that  minimum  at  $3000,  and  $4000,  de- 
pending upon  whether  or  not  one  is  married.  But  I  sub- 
mit that  this  is  the  wrong  principle  to  use.  How  are  we 
to  determine  what  is  the  "  minimum  of  comfortable  ex- 
istence"? The  plutocrat  will  want  to  measure  this  in 
terms  of  five  or  six  figures ;  the  average  laboring  man  will 
be  happy  and  comfortable  with  considerably  less  than 
$2000.  Some  consider  a  college  education  necessary; 
others  do  not.  No  two  will  agree  on  what  is  the  correct 
figure. 

Using  this  as  the  basis,  furthermore,  violates  the  rule 
laid  down  by  Adam  Smith  in  his  Wealth  of  Nations, 
where  he  says  that  subjects  of  a  state  should  contribute 
according  to  their  abilities,  that  is,  according  to  the  in- 
come enjoyed  under  the  protection  of  the  state;  and  later 
writers,  notably  David  Ahies  Wells,  have  supported  the 
same  view. 

Again,  this  exemption  classes  non-payers  as  paupers  in 
the  eyes  of  the  government.  Why,  the  man  who  is  worth 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  227 

$80,000  and  gets  a  $4000  income  is  the  only  one  capable  of 
supporting  the  government !  Although  non-payers  re- 
ceive the  same  benefits  from  the  state  as  those  who  pay, 
they  are  not  charged  for  their  benefits,  so  that  the  govern- 
ment is  performing  an  act  of  charity,  putting  men,  as 
Philip  S.  Post  says,  "  in  the  conscious  position  of  paupers 
of  the  government." 

The  fourth  reason  for  not  using  the  minimum  of  com- 
fortable existence  and  the  resulting  high  exemption  is, 
that  it  may  produce  undesirable  results.  As  the  demand 
for  more  money  increases  it  will  be  so  very  easy  for  Con- 
gress merely  to  increase  the  rate  of  taxation  and  further 
burden  those  already  paying,  few  as  they  are.  This,  in 
fact,  may  be  so  easily  done  that  legislators  will  be  led  to 
extravagance  on  even  a  greater  scale  than  now,  if  that  is 
possible.  And  the  great  mass  of  people,  still  unreached 
by  the  tax,  will  be  slow  to  check  this  tendency,  just  be- 
cause they  do  not  pay  the  cost,  directly. 

But,  what  then  shall  be  used  as  the  basis  for  exemp- 
tion? The  answer  is  to  use  an  amount  which  is  much 
lower,  more  nearly  approaching  the  "  minimum  of  sub- 
sistence." Previous  practice  justifies  this;  the  law  of 
1861  had  an  exemption  of  $800;  that  of  1862,  $600;  that 
of  1867,  $1000;  that  of  1870,  $2000.  The  Wisconsin  state 
income  tax  law,  with  an  exemption  of  $800  for  one  indi- 
vidual, of  $1200  for  husband  and  wife  and  $200  additional 
for  each  child  under  18  years,  has  proved  a  decided  suc- 
cess, and  these  figures  have  been  found  to  amply  cover  the 
cost  of  subsistence. 

Furthermore,  authorities  recognize  the  validity  of  this 
principle.  J.  S.  Mill,  who  contended  very  ably  for  the 
principle  of  the  income  tax,  said  that  the  amount  required 
for  the  necessities  of  life  should  be  exempt  from  taxation. 
David  Ames  Wells  went  a  step  further  and  said  that 
"owing  to  the  comparative  equality  of  fortunes  (in  the 


228  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

United  States)  the  exemption,  if  any  exemption  is  to  be 
permitted,  should  be  extremely  low." 

And,  in  regard  to  the  present  law,  prominent  econo- 
mists and  supporters  of  the  law  favor  a  reduction  of  the 
exemption  limit.  Mortimer  L.  Schiff  of  New  York  would 
reduce  it  to  such  a  figure  as  to  make  only  those  exempt 
who  have  substantially  no  source  of  income  except  their 
wages.  Professor  Seligman  says  that  the  only  reason  for 
the  high  exemption  was  a  political  one;  congressmen 
feared  to  place  it  lower  on  account  of  the  way  it  might 
affect  the  voters,  a  fact  which  ought  to  stir  us  up,  but 
doesn't.  Professor  Blakey,  probably  the  most  ardent  of 
those  favoring  the  law,  said  in  1913  that  those  with  in- 
comes down  to  $2000  should  report  them,  and  that  "  in 
another  year  or  two  the  exemption  should  be  lowered  " ! 
This,  it  seems  to  me,  argues  pretty  well  for  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  exemption  is  too  high. 

Now  may  I  say  a  few  words  about  the  justice  of  the 
proposed  plan  and  the  benefits  which  will  result  from  its 
adoption.  With  the  exemption  materially  lowered,  a 
much  larger  part  of  the  population  will  pay  the  tax,  and 
every  one  who  pays  it  will  be  directly  benefited.  The 
feeling  that  one  has  a  personal  stake  in  the  government  is 
a  great  thing  for  the  individual.  Too  often  we  forget 
that  we  have  a  country.  We  fail  to  go  to  the  polls,  we 
permit  fraud  and  extravagance  to  run  riot  in  the  govern- 
ment, while  we  continue  our  own  wild  scramble  for  the 
Almighty  Dollar.  Don't  you  suppose  that  our  paying 
such  a  tax  will  bring  a  change?  We  will  be  directly 
supporting  the  government.  It  will  be  our  money  that  is 
being  spent,  and  if  a  careless  Congress  starts  in  to  waste 
our  money,  we  're  going  to  make  a  kick,  and  will  either 
reform  our  legislators  or  go  down  there  and  do  their  work 
as  it  should  be  done. 

The  country  as  a  whole,  too,  will  be  vastly  benefited  by 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  229 

the  change.  It  is  no  secret  that  the  present  tax  has  failed 
miserably  to  provide  the  expected  return  to  the  govern- 
ment. The  first  year  brought  in  some  $31,000,000,  or 
$23,000,000  less  than  was  estimated,  and  later  years  have 
failed  to  remedy  this  defect.  But  a  reduction  of  the  ex- 
emption limit  would  materially  increase  the  revenues,  Mr. 
Blakey  admitting  that  a  reduction  of  $1000  would  prob- 
ably catch  at  least  as  many  incomes  again,  as  now  pay. 
Look  at  the  Wisconsin  income  tax ;  it  provides  a  revenue 
to  the  state  which  is  one-twenty  fifth  as  great  as  the  total 
return  from  the  federal  income  tax  in  all  states,  and  Wis- 
consin is  not  by  any  means  the  most  populous  or  richest 
state.  A  writer  in  Everybody's  Magazine  for  October, 
1916,  gives  some  figures  that  are  vitally  interesting  in  this 
connection.  He  says  that  if  the  United  States  applied 
the  British  peace  rates,  such  as  existed  before  the  war, 
to  only  such  incomes  as  are  likely  to  be  taxed  by  a  reduc- 
tion, we  would  then  raise  about  $250,000,000  a  year,  which 
is  $200,000,000  more  than  we  now  get !  From  the  finan- 
cial standpoint,  the  change  would  certainly  be  beneficial  to 
the  country.  In  these  few  minutes  I  have  tried  to  show 
you  that  our  present  tax,  with  its  high  exemption,  is 
a  class  tax;  that  the  exemption  of  the  present  system  is 
based  upon  an  undesirable  principle;  that  the  proposed 
exemption  limit  is  based  upon  a  desirable  principle;  and 
that  the  proposed  plan  is  just.  There  are  other  points 
which  could  well  be  taken  up  if  time  would  permit,  but  it 
has  been  necessary  to  confine  my  remarks  to  the  more 
social  aspects  of  the  matter. 

There  is  little  that  I  can  add  which  will  influence  your 
opinions.  But  as  members  of  this  very  commendable  or- 
ganization, I  am  sure  that  you  are  entirely  open-minded, 
and  will  consider  th'ese  facts  in  connection  with  those  of 
your  own  experience,  knowledge,  and  research,  so  that  the 
subject  will  not  be  one  of  indifference  with  you.  Then  if 


230  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

you  see  fit  to  believe,  as  I  do,  that  the  federal  income  tax 
exemption  limit  should  be  lowered  by  at  least  a  thousand 
dollars,  it  will  be  your  duty  as  students,  as  citizens,  as 
leaders  in  your  communities,  to  use  what  influence  you 
can  to  secure  that  change  in  the  income  tax  law. 


APPENDIX  D.     i 

BIENNIAL  STATE  ELECTIONS 
(From  the  Boston  Herald) 

Material  to  be  arranged  in  brief  form,  as  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion (omitting  introduction  and  conclusion)  of  the  proposi- 
tion, "  Resolved :  that  Massachusetts  should  have  biennial 
state  elections." 

The  weakest  feature  of  Massachusetts  government  to- 
day is  the  practice  of  choosing  all  our  elective  state 
officials  for  a  one-year  term.  Every  other  state  in  the 
Union  provides  a  longer  term  for  its  Governor  and  sen- 
ators. Only  three  (including  Massachusetts)  retain  the 
plan  of  electing  their  representatives  annually.  One 
state  after  another  has  amended  its  constitution  in  order 
to  diminish  the  frequency  of  elections  and  to  secure 
greater  continuity  of  public  policy.  The  time  has  surely 
come  for  this  commonwealth  to  take  similar  action. 

The  advantages  which  arise  from  the  system  of  biennial 
elections,  as  shown  by  the  experience  of  other  states,  are 
manifold  and  substantial.  Where  a  two-year  term  is  es- 
tablished it  has  been  found  that  candidates  of  a  distinctly 
better  grade  come  forward  for  election.  The  legislators, 
moreover,  are  given  a  far  greater  opportunity  to  become 
familiar  with  public  problems,  and  hence  are  able  to  do 
their  work  more  intelligently.  Everywhere  it  has  been 
proved  that  the  biennial  system  reduces  the  number  of 
measures  that  find  their  way  to  a  place  in  the  statute 
book,  and  if  we  could  in  Massachusetts  reduce  our  legis- 
lative output  by  a  considerable  percentage  we  would,  on 
the  whole,  be  much  better  off.  Finally,  the  adoption  of 

231 


232  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

biennials  means  a  saving  in  the  expense  of  holding  elec- 
tions, besides  giving  the  voters  of  the  commonwealth  a 
measurable  relief  from  the  eternal  round  of  annual  pri- 
maries and  pollings  which  our  present  system  requires. 
No  state  which  has  lengthened  the  terms  of  its  Governor 
and  legislators  has  ever  returned  to  the  plan  of  annual 
elections.  That  is  a  significant  fact,  and  one  which  our 
constitutional  convention  should  weigh  carefully. 


APPENDIX  D.    2 

(Argumentative  Address) 

THE  RESTORATION  OF  OUR  MERCHANT 
MARINE  * 

Before  I  discuss  the  shipping  bill  now  before  Congress, 
which  I  have  been  fighting  to  pass  for  the  last  two  years, 
I  desire  to  give  my  views  generally  on  what  will  build 
up  an  American  merchant  marine.  I  read  with  interest 
the  proceedings  of  the  United  States  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce in  Washington  a  few  days  ago.  Unfortunately, 
from  start  to  finish,  it  was  devoted  to  the  advocacy  of 
ship  subsidy.  Gentlemen,  think  of  it,  a  ship  subsidy 
urged  at  this  time,  when  any  man  who  owns  a  vessel  in 
the  shape  of  a  ship,  steam  or  sail,  can  get  such  prices 
for  his  service,  that  if  the  government  were  to  give  him 
a  subsidy  it  would  be  a  shame  to  take  the  money.  (Ap- 
plause.) And  yet  this  great  body,  this  National  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce,  stood  there  and  asked  for  a  subsidy. 
You  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  know,  that  the  greatest 
absurdity  today  would  be  to  go  before  Congress  in  be- 
half of  the  shipowners  and  say,  "  My  clients,  those  I 
represent,  are  receiving  now  in  freights  from  100  to 
1,000  per  cent  more  than  they  ever  did  before,  but  I  ask 
you  earnestly  to  give  them  a  subsidy  in  addition."  You, 
gentlemen,  are  in  this  section  of  the  Union  that  has  de- 
voted more  of  its  energy  to  upbuilding  the  merchant 

1  Address  by  Hon.  Rufus  Hardy,  Congressman,  Sixth  Texas 
District,  before  the  Economic  Club  of  Boston,  February  23, 
1916.  Printed  in  the  National  Economic  League  Quarterly. 
i :  12-27.  May,  1916. 

233 


234  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

marine  than  any  other  section,  and  I  ask  you  what  do 
you  think  of  such  a  request?  The  great  body  of  our 
people  who  have  not  been  directly  interested  in  shipping 
have  contributed  millions  to  improving  our  harbors  and 
canals  and  rivers  so  that  your  ships  and  the  ships  of 
commerce  generally  may  safely  enter  and  traverse  them. 
That  is  sometimes  called  a  subsidy  by  those  who  seek  to 
find  countenance  for  their  demand,  but  it  is  not  a  subsidy. 
It  is  a  public  improvement.  It  does  not  go  into  the 
pocket  of  any  particular  individual  or  corporation.  A 
subsidy  is  not  distributed  in  that  way.  The  beneficiaries 
of  a  subsidy  hang  like  hungry  dogs  around  a  table  wait- 
ing for  the  crumbs  to  fall. 

I  must  tell  you  that  I  was  glad  to  find  your  chairman 
able  to  state  and  stating  so  fairly  the  facts  in  regard 
to  England's  merchant  marine.  He  tells  you  that  Eng- 
land never  has  given  a  subsidy  to  her  cargo  ships.  She 
has  paid  certain  sums,  but  for  every  dollar  she  has  ever 
given  she  has  demanded  full  service  in  return.  She  has 
built,  under  the  direction  of  her  admiralty,  certain  ships 
which  might  be  easily  turned  into  war  vessels  and  so 
constructed  that  they  could  not  be  very  economically  op- 
erated in  commerce,  but  yet  constructed  with  a  view  of 
avoiding  the  expense  of  keeping  them  idle  in  times  of 
peace  while  having  them  ready  for  a  time  of  war;  and  a 
few  vessels,  not  amounting  to  5  per  cent  of  Britain's  total 
tonnage,  have  received,  not  a  subsidy,  but  what  is  in 
effect  very  fair  and  just  compensation  for  carrying  the 
mails  and  for  other  public  service  rendered  and  service 
contracted  to  be  rendered  in  certain  contingencies.  But 
suppose  it  could  be  shown  that  England  did  subsidize 
some  of  her  fast  ships,  how  would  that  help  the  other 
and  unsubsidized  vessels  of  her  vast  marine?  How 
would  it  help  Mr.  Smith  operating  his  vessel,  if  Mr.  Jones, 
operating  a  vessel  in  competition  with  him,  got  a  sub- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  235 

sidy?  Pardon  me  for  discussing  this  question  at  some 
length.  I  do  so  because  it  has  a  fascination  for  the 
shipowners,  and  it  is  shrewdly  pushed  to  the  fore  by 
the  shipbuilding  interests  which,  under  our  present  laws, 
have  a  monopoly  of  building  ships  for  the  American  flag. 
Special  favor  and  privilege  are  always  fascinating,  and 
the  recipients  of  them  are  always  overflowing  with  rea- 
sons to  justify  them.  Our  shipbuilders  have  always  en- 
joyed a  monopoly  of  our  flag  by  prohibitory  laws.  This 
did  not  matter  so  long  as  they  built  as  good  or  better 
ships  for  the  money  than  any  other  builders,  but  when  the 
time  came,  as  it  did  come,  that  they  demanded  a  price  of 
50  to  100  per  cent  more  than  the  foreign  shipbuilder 
demanded  for  the  same  ship,  then,  in  the  language  of 
James  J.  Hill,  competition  in  our  ships,  that  is  under  our 
flag,  with  foreign  ships,  became  impossible.  Then  the 
shipbuilders  and  owners  of  America  began  to  look  for 
some  way  to  do  business.  They  could  do  it  in  our  coast- 
wise trade,  of  course,  because  no  other  ships  were  allowed 
there,  but  on  the  high  seas  it  was  different.  If  ship- 
owners alone  had  been  originally  concerned  the  way  was 
easy.  All  we  had  to  do  was  simply  to  let  the  American 
buy  his  ship  here  or  elsewhere,  and  so  pay  no  more  for 
it  than  did  his  foreign  competitor.  But  our  shipbuilder 
at  that  suggestion  threw  up  his  hands  in  holy  horror.  He 
declared  he  could  not  compete  with  the  foreign  builder, 
and  that  if  you  let  American  citizens  buy  ships  where 
they  please  and  put  them  under  our  flag  and  sail  coastwise 
as  well  as  over-seas  they,  the  shipbuilders,  would  be  de- 
stroyed, and  yet  they  realized  that  the  ship  which  carried 
the  commerce  between  nations  must  do  so  because  it  car- 
ried it  cheapest,  and  that  the  cheapest  ship  made  the 
cheapest  transportation.  The  issue  was  clear  cut.  It 
was  either  put  our  shipowner  on  equal  terms  with  the 
foreign  shipowner,  or  give  up  all  participation  by  our 


236  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ships  in  the  foreign  trade  and  hold  only  to  our  coast- 
wise trade  from  which  we  could  exclude  the  foreigner  by 
law.  Since  the  coastwise  trade  was  about  three-fourths, 
now  nearly  seven-eighths,  of  all  our  trade,  the  decision 
was  quick  and  easy  for  our  shipbuilders.  They  chose 
to  hold  the  monopoly  of  building  for  our  coastwise  trade 
and  let  the  foreign  trade  go  to  the  foreign  flags;  and 
American  merchants  and  the  American  public  acquiesced. 
It  was  a  blind  and  foolish  policy,  but  urged  with  many 
plausible  arguments.  They  said,  "  Let  us  enjoy  our 
coastwise  monopoly  and  by  building  many  ships  we  will 
soon  bring  down  the  price  to  the  level  of  the  foreign 
price,  but  if  you  open  up  the  ship  market  you  will  utterly 
destroy  us,  and  then  the  foreign  shipbuilder  will  double 
his  price;  and  besides,"  they  said,  "if  war  should  come 
we  would  have  no  shipyards  and  be  at  the  mercy  of  our 
enemy."  Finally  they  said  shrewdly,  "  if  American  capi- 
tal wants  to  engage  in  foreign  transportation  it  can  buy 
the  foreign  ship,  put  it  under  the  foreign  flag,  and  so 
do  the  business."  And  this  is  what  American  capital 
did.  Later,  when  the  absence  of  our  flag  from  the  high 
seas  became  a  scandal,  we  began  to  hear  talk  about  our 
ships  being  driven  out  by  antiquated  navigation  laws  and 
the  heavy  burdens  imposed  by  our  laws  on  our  shipping. 
All  this  talk  was  vague  and  general.  It  was  never  definite 
or  specific,  and  it  was  always  accompanied  by  a  clamor 
for  subsidy.  The  subsidist  makes  his  plea  on  two 
grounds:  first,  our  antiquated  navigation  laws,  which 
he  never  points  out  and  never  seeks  to  amend ;  and  second, 
the  high  wages  we  pay  our  seamen.  I  tell  you  without 
fear  of  contradiction  that  we  have  no  antiquated  naviga- 
tion laws  that  impede  our  navigation  save  the  one  which 
forbids  our  merchantmen  from  buying  the  cheapest  ship 
he  can  for  the  money.  On  the  second  point,  the  question 
of  wages,  it  seems  never  to  occur  to  him  that  England 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  237 

also  is  a  high-wage  country,  comparatively.  Her  wages 
are  higher  than  those  of  Germany,  France,  Russia,  Nor- 
way, Sweden,  Holland  or  Italy,  and  yet  she  builds  cheaper 
and  better  ships  than  any  of  them  and  carries  more  of 
the  commerce  of  the  world  than  all  of  them  put  to- 
gether, and  she  carries  that  commerce  without  subsidy. 

Senator  Burton  in  a  speech  in  the  Fifty-ninth  Con- 
gress, declared  that  no  nation  had  ever  built  up  a  great 
merchant  marine  on  subsidy,  and  he  is  a  profound  student 
of  the  subject.  My  own  study  of  the  question  has  fully 
convinced  me  of  the  truth  of  his  assertion.  England  has 
won  by  the  skill  and  bigness  and  boldness  of  her  enter- 
prise. We  must  win  in  like  manner  or  not  at  all,  but  if 
we  would  win,  we  must  take  off  the  weights  and  handi- 
caps that  prevent  us  from  running  an  equal  race,  and 
then  enter  the  list  of  competitors  seeking  to  furnish  the 
transportation  of  the  world  just  as  we  have  entered  the 
list  of  competitors  seeking  to  furnish  the  world  with  the 
corn,  the  wheat,  the  shoes,  the  machinery,  and  all  the 
other  products  of  labor. 

It  is  contended  sometimes  that  we  now  have  let  for- 
eign-built ships  come  under  our  flag  by  the  lately  passed 
Panama  Act.  I  want  you  clearly  to  understand  the  an- 
swer. We  have  done  no  such  thing.  We  did  pretend 
to  do  it,  but  it  was  only  pretense.  We  passed  a  bill  au- 
thorizing the  American  merchantman  to  buy  a  ship 
wherever  he  pleased,  but  in  the  same  bill  we  said  that  if 
it  was  built  anywhere  else  than  in  the  United  States  he 
could  only  sail  it  in  the  foreign  trade.  Now  what  does 
that  mean?  It  means  he  might  put  our  flag  over  it;  but 
when  he  does  so,  what  advantage  does  he  get  by  doing 
it?  Not  a  rap  of  your  finger.  Under  this  fraud  of  a 
law  he  cannot  do  anything  under  our  flag  that  he  could 
not  do  under  the  foreign  flag.  He  may  bring  goods  from 
Liverpool  to  New  York  or  Boston  and  carry  goods  back 


238  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

to  Liverpool.  He  could  do  that  under  the  foreign  flag. 
He  gains  absolutely  nothing.  What  does  he  lose  ?  First, 
he  must  change  his  officers  when  he  changes  to  our  flag. 
These  he  perhaps  cherishes  because  they  have  been  faith- 
ful and  serviceable.  That  is  his  first  difficulty.  What 
next?  He  loses  every  distinctive  privilege  he  had  under 
the  flag  he  transfers  from.  If  it  is  the  English  flag  he 
loses  the  privilege  of  sailing  in  the  coastwise  trade  of 
some  dozen  different  nations  with  whom  England  has 
treaties  of  comity.  And  moreover,  he  loses  the  privilege 
of  sailing  in  the  coastwise  trade  of  Canada.  It  is  safe 
to  say  that  there  is  no  nation  under  whose  flag  a  vessel 
does  not  enjoy  some  especial  advantage,  small  or  great, 
and  it  is  certain  that  by  the  law  in  question  we  offer 
absolutely  no  inducement  to  cause  a  shipowner  under  a 
foreign  flag  to  part  with  even  the  smallest  advantage.  It 
is  said  that  we  in  the  South  are  careless  in  business  mat- 
ters, but  that  your  people  are  not.  As  a  New  England 
business  man,  if  you  owned  a  ship  under  the  English 
flag  or  any  other  flag,  would  you  change  it  to  the  Ameri- 
can flag  when  you  understood  the  simple  truth  as  I  have 
told  it  to  you  about  this  so-called  "  free-ship  law "  ? 
The  committee  I  am  on  reported  out  that  law  after  I  had 
tried  and  failed  to  get  them  to  let  such  ships  engage 
in  our  coastwise  trade.  I  told  them  that  not  a  single 
ship  would  come  under  our  flag  under  its  provisions,  and 
no  ship  did,  until  the  dangers  of  the  present  war  came, 
and  then  some  of  them  took  advantage  of  that  law  solely 
on  account  of  our  neutral  position,  and  they  came  with 
the  privilege  of  retaining  their  officers  because  the  law 
requiring  American  officers  was  suspended  to  enable  them 
to  do  so. 

There  is  one  other  familiar  subject  I  wish  to  talk  about 
just  a  little;  the  subject  of  discriminating  duties.  Your 
chairman  has  said  that  discriminating  duties  have  been 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  239 

tried  by  every  nation  on  earth  and  have  failed.  That  is 
true.  In  our  early  history  Jefferson  said  that  as  long 
as  other  nations  levied  discriminating  duties  against  us, 
we  must  maintain  retaliatory  duties  against  them;  and 
that  fact  has  of  late  years  been  falsely  quoted  to  show 
that  Jefferson  favored  discriminating  duties.  The  whole 
truth  is  this:  when  the  original  thirteen  states  had  sepa- 
rate shipping  laws  they  found  that  England  and  other 
nations  were  discriminating  against  them  by  imposing 
heavy  tonnage  dues  on  American  ships  entering  their 
ports,  and  also  heavy  tariff  duties  on  goods  imported  in 
such  ships.  Then  it  was  found  that  when  a  state  tried 
separately  to  retaliate  she  could  not,  because  if  Boston, 
for  instance,  imposed  a  high  duty  and  New  York  a 
lower  duty,  Boston  lost  her  trade  and  New  York  got  it. 
New  York  and  Massachusetts  could  not  agree,  and  if 
they  had  agreed,  then  Baltimore  could  come  down  in  her 
dues  and  duties,  and  get  the  trade.  This  was  the  situa- 
tion when  our  Federal  Constitution  was  framed.  It  was 
one  of  the  things  that  helped  to  secure  its  adoption. 
All  the  states  desired  to  have  one  central  power  that 
could  put  in  operation  a  uniform  policy  on  tonnage  dues 
and  tariff  duties,  and  so  meet  the  laws  of  foreign  states 
which  discriminated  against  them.  Among  the  first  laws 
passed  by  Congress  was  therefore  one  enacting  retaliatory 
discriminating  duties  and  tonnage  dues.  But  as  early  as 
1802,  a  movement  was  started  to  repeal  that  law  and  place 
in  its  stead  upon  our  statute  books  a  law  authorizing  the 
President  to  negotiate  treaties  abolishing  our  discriminat- 
ing duties  as  to  such  nations  as  would  abolish  theirs 
against  us.  But  it  so  happened  that  at  this  time  the 
French  Revolution  was  disturbing  all  the  world.  Laws 
and  treaties  were  everywhere  asleep  in  international  af- 
fairs. The  Napoleonic  wars  were  sweeping  the  ocean  of 
the  merchantmen  of  nearly  all  European  nations,  and  our 


240  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ships  had  all  they  could  do.  They  had  a  harvest.  But 
just  as  soon  as  European  peace  was  proclaimed  the  lead- 
ing men  of  all  parties  in  1815  in  the  United  States  joined 
in  the  passage  of  an  act  to  abolish  discriminating  duties 
against  all  nations  that  would  abolish  them  as  to  us. 
The  President  was  authorized  to  negotiate  treaties  to 
that  end.  Some  eighteen  treaties  were  negotiated  in  the 
next  ten  years.  There  were  many  qualifying  clauses  in 
these  treaties  not  necessary  now  to  discuss.  In  this  coun- 
try all  parties  and  the  leaders  of  all  parties  continually 
endeavored  to  make  the  sea  more  and  more  free,  but 
England,  with  her  vast  colonial  possessions,  continued 
to  refuse  to  meet  our  overtures.  We  were  particularly 
anxious  to  trade  freely  with  the  West  Indies,  and  Eng- 
land was  anxious  that  we  should  not.  She  practiced  all 
sorts  of  discriminations  against  our  shipping.  President 
John  Quincy  Adams  and  his  Secretary  of  State,  Henry 
Clay,  sought  every  way  to  make  a  treaty  of  reciprocity 
with  her  and  to  abolish  these  discriminations.  They 
failed.  They  sent  special  representatives  to  England. 
That  failed,  but  in  1828  President  Andrew  Jackson  sent 
a  special  agent  to  England  with  authority  and  instructions 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  and  with  a  message  to  the  effect  that 
a  change  had  taken  place  in  the  American  administration, 
that  he  meant  business;  and  the  treaty  was  finally  made. 
England  was  the  last  great  nation  to  give  in,  and  from 
1828  down  to  this  day  we  have  practically  neither  laid 
nor  paid  discriminating  duties. 

I  could  go  into  the  subject  at  great  length  and  show 
you  how  such  duties  obstructed  commerce  and  irritated 
and  aggravated  nations  and  injured  peoples.  I  could 
show  you  how  it  came  to  pass  that  an  owner  of  cotton 
who  must  ship  it  from  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  to 
Europe,  found  it  better  to  pay  an  exorbitant  freight  and 
send  it  on  a  foreign  ship  than  to  send  it  on  American 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  241 

vessels  free,  and  how  England  finally  closed  her  West 
Indian  ports  to  our  ships.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  dis- 
criminating duties  force  cut-throatism  and  obstruct  com- 
merce, and  we  do  not  want  them.  What  we  want  is  to 
struggle  with  the  world  on  equal  terms  on  the  sea  for  our 
part  of  its  carrying  trade  and  its  commerce. 

The  shipbuilding  and  coastwise  interests  are  constantly 
talking  about  our  antiquated  navigation  laws  in  the  pub- 
lic press  as  the  cause  of  the  decay  of  our  merchant  ma- 
rine. I  have  made  them  ashamed  to  talk  that  way  when 
they  come  before  our  committee  because  I  have  demanded 
that  they  point  out  the  laws  they  complain  of,  and 
shown  them  that  they  have  never  asked  for  the  repeal  of 
a  single  law.  Your  chairman  tonight  is  the  first  man 
interested  in  shipping  who  has  ever  in  my  hearing  named 
the  real  antiquated  law  which  has  killed  our  merchant 
marine.  The  shipbuilder  will  not  tell  you  what  it  is,  but 
he  knows.  I  have  had  them  tell  me  in  years  gone  by  that 
our  law  required  our  seamen  to  be  given  better  accom- 
modations than  the  seamen  of  any  other  nation  on  earth. 
There  is  a  seaman  here  (Mr.  Furuseth)  who  will  tell  you 
that  is  not  true.  I  looked  at  the  law.  Our  law,  until 
last  year,  required  72  cubic  feet  of  space  for  each  mem- 
ber of  the  crew  to  eat,  live,  and  sleep  in.  England's  law 
requires  120  feet,  and  France  and  nearly  every  other  na- 
tion requires  from  100  to  120  feet.  So  we  have  not  re- 
quired better,  but  poorer,  quarters  for  our  seamen.  Some- 
times they  told  me  that  our  law  prescribed  an  excessive 
scale  of  food.  Look  at  the  English  food  scale,  and  there 
is  hardly  any  difference.  We  have  a  law,  it  is  true,  pre- 
scribing a  moderate  schedule  of  food,  but  then,  this  is 
allowed  to  be  varied  by  the  terms  of  the  contract  under 
which  the  seamen  enlist,  and  it  is  always  varied.  (Ap- 
plause.) When  I  have  shown  these  things  and  asked 
again  what  laws,  they  are  dumb  as  oysters  because  they 


242  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

cannot  find  a  law  on  our  statute  books  that  cripples  our 
merchant  marine  except  the  law  which  your  chairman 
pointed  out,  and  which  I  have  pointed  out  tonight,  and 
that  is  the  law  which  prevents  you  from  buying  a  ship 
where  you  please  and  using  it  in  all  our  trades.  The 
shipbuilders  and  coastwise  shipowners  will  not  point  out 
that  law  because  they  do  not  want  it  repealed.  Let  me 
show  you  how  impossible  it  is  for  us  to  have  a  merchant 
marine  until  that  law  is  repealed.  It  was  testified  before 
our  committee  that  a  ship  costing  $1,000,000  here  would 
cost  $700,000  laid  down  on  the  Clyde.  Now  if  you  buy 
the  ship  here,  it  will  cost  you  $1,000,000  and  you  can  sail 
it  as  an  American  ship  in  every  trade.  If  you  buy  it  on 
the  Clyde  and  put  the  British  flag  on  it  you  pay  $700,000. 
Ships  are  bought  on  borrowed  money.  That  means  that 
on  the  American  ship  you  pay  interest  on  $300,000  more 
than  you  would  on  the  British  ship,  and  if  you  pay  5  per 
cent  interest  it  means  $15,000  more  interest  per  year.  It 
means  also  that  you  pay  insurance  on  $300,000  more, 
which  I  think  is  generally  about  5  per  cent,  and  which 
would  make  your  insurance  $15,000  more  per  year.  A 
ship  is  supposed  to  last  twenty  years,  and  5  per  cent 
is  charged  off  annually  for  depreciation.  Repairs  are 
also  estimated  to  cost  annually  5  per  cent  on  the  value 
of  the  vessel.  So  by  buying  the  American  ship  you  will 
pay  annually  $15,000  more  interest,  $15,000  more  insur- 
ance, $15,000  more  for  repairs  and  $15,000  more  for 
depreciation,  all  told,  $60,000  more  per  year  under  this 
antiquated  law  for  the  blessed  privilege  of  sailing  your 
ship  under  the  American  flag  with  the  full  privilege  of 
an  American  vessel.  As  a  man  that  is  not  more  blind 
than  the  cow  that  can  keep  in  the  road,  I  ask  this  simple 
question  of  you:  If  you,  the  most  patriotic  man  in 
America,  were  thinking  of  going  into  the  overseas  carry- 
ing trade,  would  you  buy  the  American  ship  and  pay 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  243 

this  $300,000  excess  initial  cost,  and  this  $60,000  excess 
annual  charge  every  year?  Business  men  in  the  carry- 
ing trade  are  not  fools,  and  you  see  just  as  well  as  I  do 
why  our  merchant  marine  died. 

The  live  present  question  for  us  to  solve  is:  If  you 
give  the  American  shipowner  the  best  and  cheapest  ship  in 
the  world,  can  he  successfully  compete  in  the  foreign  trade 
under  our  flag?  If  you  give  him  all  the  privileges  per- 
taining to  the  American  flag  and  place  no  more  restric- 
tions upon  him  than  are  placed  upon  foreign  ships  en- 
tering our  ports,  I  answer  yes.  And  I  will  tell  you  why. 
Next  to  America,  England  pays  the  highest  wages  among 
all  the  great  nations.  She  pays  higher  wages  than  Ger- 
many or  France.  Far  higher  wages  than  Italy  or  Japan, 
and  yet  her  merchant  marine  is  triumphant  over  those 
nations.  I  have  said  this  before  but  repeat  it  in  order  to 
say  that  what  England  has  done,  we  can  do.  What  Eng- 
land's shipbuilders  have  done,  ours  can  do.  What  our 
steel  and  iron  manufacturers  have  done,  our  shipbuilders 
can  do.  Our  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  today,  not- 
withstanding our  wages^  do  turn  out  the  cheapest  prod- 
ucts in  the  world.  No  man  will  do  a  thing  that  is  hard 
to  accomplish  unless  he  has  to.  Just  so  long  as  you 
pamper  and  pet  your  shipbuilders  and  ship  operators, 
and  tell  them  they  do  not  have  to  enter  competition,  they 
will  sit  back,  but  when  you  tell  them  they  are  full-grown 
and  must  get  out  and  compete  for  success  then  America 
will  again  build  ships  and  sail  them  for  herself  and  for 
the  world.  (Applause.)  So  long  as  our  builders  can 
charge  the  highest  price  in  the  world  for  ships  and  yet 
furnish  them  for  seven-eighths  of  our  trade,  they  will  do 
it.  I  wish  you  could  all  read  Mr.  Redfield's  testimony  be- 
fore our  committee.  There  is  a  condition  now  like  that 
on  railroads  when  a  new  motive  power  is  found,  and  the 
old  locomotives  have  to  be  put  into  the  discard.  It  is  a 


244  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

condition  similar  to  that  of  1855  to  '60,  when  the  iron 
and  steel  ship  began  to  replace  the  old  wooden  ship,  and 
when  England  began  to  take  the  lead  of  us  with  her 
new  ships.  You  know  many  an  invention  has  failed  to 
find  acceptance  because  it  would  displace  something  al- 
ready in  use.  The  old  world,  the  world  that  has  been 
carrying  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  United  States,  has 
on  hand  old-style  ships,  old  machinery  and  small  ships. 
They  will  cling  to  them.  They  will  hate  to  scrap  them. 
We  must  build  a  new  class  of  ships,  and  the  material 
and  opportunity  is  present  at  our  hands.  I  know  little 
about  machinery,  but  if  you  will  read  the  testimony  of 
Secretary  Redfield,  you  will  find  that  by  standardizing; 
by  using  our  great  steel  and  iron  factories  to  make  whole- 
sale the  separate  parts  which  can  be  assembled  and  put 
together  where  wanted,  and  by  using  the  internal  com- 
bustion engine,  by  using  oil  instead  of  coal  for  fuel,  by 
economizing  space  in  the  new  construction  and  by  the 
use  of  modern  apparatus  for  loading  and  unloading, 
and  by  building  larger  ships,  our  shipbuilders  can  build 
ships  that  will  make  it  easy  for  us  to  take  the  sea  if  we 
try.  Now  is  our  chance. 


APPENDIX  D.     3 
(A  student's  argument) 

THE  RAILWAYS  AFTER  THE  WAR 
BY  J.  H.  VAN  VLECK 

An  address  to  be  delivered  before  a  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
the  occasion  to  be  a  meeting  to  decide  whether  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  should  adopt  resolutions  favoring  exclusive 
federal  regulation.  Based  on  a  brief  on  the  affirmative  of 
the  proposition :  "  Resolved :  that  the  federal  government 
should  permanently  be  given  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  all 
phases  of  railway  control  and  regulation  (street  railways  and 
interurbans  excepted)  now  entrusted  to  state  governments." 
References  to  sources  of  material  have  been  inserted  into  the 
manuscript. 

On  December  28,  1917,  Uncle  Sam  formally  assumed 
control  of  all  railways  in  the  United  States.  (R.  R.  Age 
Gazette,  Vol.  64,  p.  7.)  This  was  the  most  revolutionary 
change  that  has  ever  occurred  in  American  railway  af- 
fairs, for  not  only  was  private  operation  temporarily 
abandoned,  but  also  a  new  relationship  was  established 
between  the  federal  government  and  the  forty-nine  states. 
Under  the  new  regime,  a  new  regulatory  body,  headed  by 
Director-General  McAdoo,  has  been  created,  with  hitherto 
unheard-of  power  over  the  railways,  for  it  has  the  author- 
ity to  overrule  the  regulatory  provisions  established  by  all 
the  state  commissions,  and  prescribes  in  lieu  thereof  or- 
ders of  its  own.  This  power  has  already  been  exercised, 
for  many  of  Mr.  McAdoo's  orders  are  in  direct  contradic- 
tion to  the  rulings  of  the  various  states.  (R.  R.  Age 
Gazette,  Vol.  64,  p.  115.)  This  means  that  for  the  period 
of  the  war,  the  states  must  play  second  fiddle  to  the  fed- 

245 


246  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

eral  government  in  the  matter  of  regulation.  However, 
this  priority  of  national  control  is  only  a  war  measure. 
It  is  an  admission  of  the  failure  of  previously  existing 
methods  to  solve  the  railroad  problem  during  time  of  war, 
but  it  does  not  directly  prove  that  our  former  railroad 
policy  has  not  been  successful  in  time  of  peace.  It  is  this 
last  question  of  the  correct  peace  basis  for  railroad  activ- 
ity that  we  must  consider  tonight.  The  bold  steps  taken 
by  President  Wilson  will  successfully  solve  the  railroad 
problem  during  the  war,  but  the  arrival  of  peace,  of  peace 
with  victory  we  hope  and  trust,  will  again  bring  the  rail- 
road question  to  the  front,  for  the  present  mode  of  control 
is  merely  a  temporary  compromise  between  government 
and  private  control  which  is  not  a  sound  permanent  policy. 

The  importance  of  good  railroads  to  the  country,  even 
in  time  of  peace,  is  recognized  by  every  one.  President 
Wilson  sizes  up  their  importance  admirably  in  his  famous 
war  proclamation  of  last  year,  which  states,  "The  rail- 
ways are  the  arteries  of  the  nation's  life."  A  moment's 
reflection  show  that  this  is  true,  for  without  railways, 
trade  and  commerce  would  be  at  a  standstill,  and  famine 
would  stalk  throughout  the  land.  A  more  detailed  state- 
ment of  the  importance  of  railroad  prosperity  is  found  in 
a  letter  of  President  Wilson  published  in  The  Railway 
Library  for  1914  (p.  326),  says,  "The  interest  of  the 
whole  public  in  the  proper  maintenance  and  complete  effi- 
ciency of  the  railways  is  manifest.  They  are  indispen- 
sable to  our  whole  economic  life." 

Realizing  the  importance  of  railroad  prosperity,  let  us 
see  whether  the  railways  of  the  United  States  are  in  a 
condition  of  "  proper  maintenance  and  complete  effi- 
ciency," it  being  understood  that  this  examination  is  to 
be  made  strictly  from  a  peace-time  viewpoint.  A  short 
study  of  conditions  suffices  to  show  that  the  railroads  have 
failed  in  their  functions  even  in  time  of  peace.  In  the 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  247 

first  place,  the  facilities  of  lines  already  built  are  not  being 
enlarged  at  the  normal  rate  sufficient  to  take  care  of  ordi- 
nary increases  in  traffic,  for  although  the  trade  and  busi- 
ness of  this  country  keeps  increasing  faster  and  faster, 
few  locomotives  and  fewer  cars  were  ordered  by  the  rail- 
roads in  the  last  three  years  than  during  any  correspond- 
ing period  since  this  century  began.  (R.  R.  Age  Gazette, 
Vol.  64,  pp.  59-65.)  The  construction  of  third  and  fourth 
(or  more)  tracks  is  one  of  the  vital  parts  of  the  enlarge- 
ment of  railway  facilities,  yet,  out  of  the  thousands  of 
miles  of  these  tracks  in  the  United  States,  less  than  a 
hundred  miles  were  built  in  the  last  two  years.  (Ibid., 
p.  52.)  No  wonder  we  can't  get  coal,  if  the  railways  are 
making  fewer  and  fewer  improvements  every  year,  despite 
the  country's  continued  rapid  growth.  Not  only  has  there 
long  been  a  lack  of  intensive  development  in  lines  already 
built,  but  there  has  also  been  a  lack  of  new  railroad  con- 
struction in  undeveloped  territory,  such  as  will  be  neces- 
sary for  the  nation's  internal  expansion  after  the  war,  for 
during  the  past  few  years  new  railway  construction  has 
reached  new  low-water  marks  unparalleled  since  the  Civil 
War.  (Ibid.,  Vol.  64,  p.  51.)  In  1917,  for  the  first  time 
since  railroads  were  built  in  the  United  States,  in  the  days 
of  '31,  hundreds  of  miles  of  railways  were  either  aban- 
doned, or  taken  up  and  sold  for  junk.  In  1917,  more 
miles  of  railway  were  being  or  about  to  be  abandoned  or 
scrapped  than  were  actually  being  built!  (Ibid.,  p.  49.) 
There  is  not  much  hope  for  improvement  in  the  future 
under  our  existing  railway  policy,  for  the  railroads  have 
no  source  of  revenue  out  of  which  to  make  needed  im- 
provements. Despite  frequent  assertions  that  the  rail- 
roads are  paying  swollen  and  unwarranted  dividends,  the 
statistics  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  show 
that  the  average  net  earnings  of  railroad  companies  have 
long  been  less  than  six  per  cent.  (Published  in  annual 


248  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

report  to  Congress;  reprinted  in  the  R.  R.  Age  Gazette, 
Vol.  63,  p.  1155,  and  Vol.  64,  pp.  43-5.)  Although  traffic 
is  increasing,  profits  are  decreasing,  due  to  the  rising  high 
cost  of  living  for  the  railroads  in  the  shape  of  higher 
wages  and  doubled  and  trebled  prices  for  rails  and  other 
new  equipment.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  sur- 
plus with  which  improvements  can  be  made.  Also  there 
is  scant  opportunity  for  increased  capitalization,  for  the 
latest  Wall  Street  quotations  show  that  by  far  the  greatest 
number  of  railroad  securities  are  selling  way  below  par. 
(See  Chicago  Herald,  Feb.  28,  1918,  p.  u.)  Over  17,000 
miles  of  railway  are  now  in  the  receiver's  hands.  (R.  R. 
Age  Gazette,  Vol.  64,  p.  46.)  This  wretched  state  of  rail- 
way finance  is  not  only  reflected  in  the  inadequate  provi- 
sion for  increased  traffic,  but  also  in  general  credit  condi- 
tions throughout  the  country,  for  according  to  President 
Warfield  of  the  Continental  Trust  Company  of  Baltimore, 
"50,000,000  people,  half  of  our  population,  are  either  di- 
rect or  indirect  owners  of  or  investors  in  the  securities  of 
the  railroads  of  the  United  States."  (Ibid.,  Vol.  63,  p. 
907.)  Thus  from  both  a  Commercial  and  a  credit  view- 
point, the  present  malady  of  the  railroads  is  a  curse  to  the 
United  States. 

Two  leading  explanations  have  been  made  for  this 
wretched  state  of  the  railroads.  One  body  of  agitators, 
led  by  Senator  La  Follette,  attributes  all  evils  to  corrupt 
and  inefficient  management  on  the  part  of  the  wicked 
railroads,  while  another  group  of  economists  and  politi- 
cians claim  the  trouble  is  due  to  unwise  regulation.  The 
former  favor  permanent  government  ownership  as  the 
only  possible  remedy  for  the  bad  railway  situation,  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  they  are  advocating  exclusive 
federal  regulation,  for  they  do  not  propose  under  any  cir- 
cumstances to  have  the  federal  government  own  and 
operate  the  railroads,  but  have  the  states  fix  the  rates 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  249 

and  standards  of  service.  However,  indications  are  that 
Congress  will  vote  to  return  the  railways  to  private 
operation  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  war.  If  this  is 
done,  some  vital  change  must  be  made  in  our  policy  of 
regulation,  for  further  continuance  of  the  present  railway 
fiasco  is  unthinkable.  The  most  evident  manner  of  re- 
forming our  regulation  is  to  readjust  the  division  of  regu- 
latory control  between  the  state  and  federal  governments, 
and  this  is  the  phase  of  the  railway  problem  which  we 
shall  consider  this  evening. 

In  order  to  judge  this  question  intelligently,  it  is  essen- 
tial that  one  should  know  just  what  is  and  has  been  the 
status  of  railway  regulation.  The  states  began  to  exer- 
cise control  over  the  railways  much  earlier  than  the  fed- 
eral government,  for  it  is  under  their  charters  that  all  our 
railways  have  been  incorporated.  Many  states  had  Rail- 
road Commissions  before  the  Civil  War,  while  state  regu- 
lation of  railway  rates  became  effective  in  1877,  the  year 
of  the  famous  Granger  Cases.  (Forman,  U.  S.  History, 
p.  406.)  This  early  part  of  state  regulation  has  naturally 
resulted  in  giving  the  states  the  bulk  of  the  work  and  au- 
thority of  railway  control.  The  state  power  over  the  rail- 
ways is  practically  unlimited  (except  in  war  time),  as 
long  as  it  has  not  been  found  to  interfere  with  the  federal 
regulation  of  interstate  commerce,  or  to  result  in  the  vir- 
tual confiscation  of  railway  property.  (U.  S.  Constitu- 
tion, Sec.  8,  Art.  i;  Sec.  i,  Amendment  14.)  According 
to  the  Bureau  of  Railway  Economics  at  Washington,  the 
regulations  prescribed  by  the  states  include  intrastate 
freight  and  passenger  rates,  car  supply  for  intrastate 
shipments,  train  operation,  character  of  equipment  and 
station  buildings,  hours  of  labor,  and  almost  every  con- 
ceivable phase  of  railway  operation.  (Bulletin  No.  15  of 
Bureau  of  R.  R.  Economics,  p.  6.)  Federal  railway  regu- 
lation has  been  a  comparatively  recent  development,  for 


250  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

it  was  not  until  the  twentieth  century  that  the  national 
government  regulated  any  rates,  hours  of  service,  or 
wages  of  labor.  (See  Hepburn  Act;  La  Follette  Law, 
and  Adamson  Law.)  Hence  regular  federal  control  of 
the  railways  has  not  become  very  extensive,  except  for 
the  recent  war  measures.  Normally,  the  federal  govern- 
ment fixes  only  interstate  rates,  and  also  regulates  car  serv- 
ice, hours  of  labor,  etc.,  to  a  very  limited  degree,  and  only 
in  interstate  commerce.  The  national  government  does 
not  exercise  any  effective  control  over  the  securities  and 
financial  operations  of  the  railways,  for  the  railroads  are 
all  incorporated  under  state  charters. 

The  specific  reform  we  are  considering  in  the  rela- 
tions of  state  and  nation  in  railway  control,  is  exclusive 
federal  regulation,  whereby  the  national  government 
would  receive  supreme  and  complete  authority  in  all 
phases  of  railway  control.  To  establish  the  case  for  ex- 
clusive federal  regulation,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  pres- 
ent dual  system  of  railway  control  is  unsatisfactory,  and 
that  the  proposed  scheme  is  both  practical  and  just.  Con- 
sidering the  issues  in  this  order,  let  us  proceed  to  examine 
the  merits  of  the  proposition. 

The  most  evident  objection  to  the  present  dual  system 
of  railway  regulation  is  its  lack  of  uniformity  and  co- 
operation. Not  only  are  there  conflicts  between  the  con- 
trol exercised  by  the  federal  government  and  that  im- 
posed by  the  states  in  general,  but  it  must  also  be  remem- 
bered that  the  various  states  employ  their  powers  of  regu- 
lation individually  without  consultation  with  each  other. 
The  result  of  this  lack  of  cooperation  is  great  diversity 
in  the  character  of  railway-control  exercised  by  the  differ- 
ent states.  Some  states  regulate  certain  phases  of  rail- 
way operation,  while  other  states  a  short  distance  away 
regulate  entirely  different  aspects  of  railroad  service. 
Some  states  are  very  severe  in  their  requirements  and 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  251 

others  are  too  lenient.  Railroad  securities  are  regulated 
in  only  twenty-three  states;  in  the  rest  of  the  United 
States  there  is  absolutely  no  supervision  exercised  over 
the  financial  operations  of  the  railways,  so  that  the  public, 
and  stockholders  as  well,  are  not  protected  from  the  evils 
of  speculation  and  overcapitalization.  (R.  R.  Committee 
of  U.  S.  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette, 
Vol.  63,  p.  508.)  Again,  the  character  of  locomotive 
headlights  is  specified  in  only  twenty-eight  states,  but  each 
of  the  twenty-eight  specify  different  standards  to  be  lived 
up  to  by  the  railroads.  (A.  J.  County,  Vice-President  of 
Penna.  R.  R.,  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61,  p.  792.) 
Another  good  example  of  the  discord  in  state  regulation  is 
found  in  the  matter  of  clearance-gauges.  Cars  which  are 
permitted  to  be  operated  in  some  states  are  not  allowed  in 
others,  because  it  is  claimed  they  do  not  clear  obstruc- 
tions by  a  wide  enough  margin,  although  an  equally  nar- 
row clearance  has  proved  safe  in  the  territory  in  which 
the  debarred  cars  are  run.  The  various  states  differ  not 
only  in  their  policies  towards  railroad  finance  and  train 
operation,  but  also  in  their  attitude  towards  labor  em- 
ployed by  the  railroads.  In  some  states,  it  is  illegal  for 
a  laborer  employed  by  the  railroads  to  work  more  than 
twelve  hours  a  day;  in  other  states  he  can  work  up  to 
sixteen  hours  at  a  time;  while  in  thirty  states  a  man  who 
is  "  working  on  the  railroad"  can  (if  not  a  member  of  a 
train  crew)  labor  not  only  "all  the  livelong  day"  but  for 
several  nights  and  days  at  a  stretch  without  being  re- 
strained by  any  legal  checks.  (Vice-Pres.  County  of 
Penna.  R.  R.,  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61,  p.  792.) 
Other  instances  of  conflict  in  state  regulation  can  be  cited 
ad  infinitum. 

However,  mere  lack  of  uniformity  alone  is  not  an  argu- 
ment against  the  present  dual  system  of  regulation.  The 
real  indictment  of  the  present  order  is  found  in  the  inevita- 


252  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

ble  results  of  this  conflict  between  the  federal  government 
and  the  states  in  general  and  between  the  individual  states 
themselves.  According  to  the  Bible,  no  man  can  serve 
more  than  one  master.  We  must  think  the  railways  have 
superhuman  qualities  to  expect  them  to  serve  forty-nine 
masters  simultaneously,  as  they  are  forced  to  do  under  the 
present  dual  system!  As  a  result  of  this  multiplicity  in 
regulating  bodies,  the  railroads  are  compelled  to  make  more 
than  two  million  reports  annually  to  the  various  supervising 
governmental  authorities.  (Ibid.)  The  complex  and  vary- 
ing standards  resulting  from  the  diversity  in  regulation 
tend  to  increase  the  difficulties  of  operating  officers,  for 
they  must  devote  much  of  their  time  to  understanding  and 
complying  with  the  double  standards  they  must  observe  in 
case  their  divisions  are  interstate.  An  engineer,  for  in- 
stance, must  often  change  the  width  of  the  right  of  way 
when  he  crosses  a  state-line.  The  needless  duplication  in 
regulation  not  only  increases  the  work  of  those  actually 
supervising  details  of  operations,  but  also  burdens  legal 
and  financial  officers,  for  they  must  keep  track  of  the  pro- 
posals affecting  the  railroads  introduced  in  the  forty-eight 
legislatures.  During  1912-5  no  less  than  3,016  bills  con- 
cerned with  railway  regulation  were  introduced,  many  of 
which  were  wild  and  unreasonable  in  their  demands. 
Howard  Elliot,  ex-president  of  the  New  York,  New 
Haven,  and  Hartford  Railroad,  and  member  of  the  late 
Railways'  War  Board,  says,  "  The  result  of  this  conflict 
between  state  and  nation  has  been  a  great  waste  of  en- 
ergy. ...  A  very  large  amount  of  the  time  of  the  railway 
officers  must  be  devoted  to  the  discussion  with  the  numer- 
ous regulatory  bodies,  and  this  time  could  better  be  spent 
in  an  effort  to  improve  railway  efficiency."  (Reprint  of 
Howard  Elliot's  Address  to  U.  S.  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

pp.  i&-9.) 

The  conflicts  prevailing  in  the  present  dual  system  of 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  253 

regulation  not  only  burden  the  railroads,  and  hence  indi- 
rectly the  entire  United  States,  but  also  directly  injure  the 
public  welfare,  due  to  the  discriminations  which  result 
from  the  diversity  of  railway  control.  In  many  cases  the 
intrastate  shipper  or  passenger  is  given  many  undue  spe- 
cial privileges  at  the  expense  of  the  interstate  trader  or 
traveller.  For  instance,  a  man  travelling  entirely  within 
the  state  of  Wisconsin  usually  pays  only  two  cents  a  mile, 
while  any  one  going  from  our  state  to  Chicago,  or  any 
point  outside  Wisconsin  must  pay  2.4  cents  a  mile.  Often 
these  differences  between  interstate  and  intrastate  rates 
result  in  undue  advantages  for  some  communities  at  the 
expense  of  others.  In  Illinois  the  passenger  rate,  accord- 
ing to  the  latest  Supreme  Court  decisions,  is  two  cents  a 
mile,  while  the  rate  to  adjoining  states  is  2.4  cents  a  mile, 
and  as  a  result  St.  Louis  has  been  forced  to  protest,  but  in 
vain,  against  being  compelled  to  pay  twenty  per  cent, 
higher  passenger  rates  to  Chicago  than  East  St.  Louis,  a 
town  just  across  "the  Mississippi.  Due  to  the  same  dis- 
crepancies in  rates  to  Chicago,  Madison  is  suffering  as  a 
result  of  the  undue  favoritism  to  Freeport  and  other 
towns  in  Illinois  equidistant  from  the  great  center  of  the 
West.  (Abstract  of  decision  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol. 
64,  pp.  220-1.) 

Other  discriminations  between  citizens  of  various  states 
exist  as  a  result  of  differences  in  the  requirements  of  the 
various  states,  rather  than  as  a  result  of  conflict  directly 
between  interstate  and  intrastate  rates.  According  to 
Chairman  Thorn  of  the  Railway  Executive  Council,  "  The 
traffic  of  no  two  states  moves  upon  the  same  basis." 
(Testimony  before  Newlands  Committee  of  House  of 
Representatives;  reprinted  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61, 
p.  985.)  The  passenger  fares  of  Kentucky,  for  instance, 
are  twenty-five  per  cent,  higher  than  those  of  its  neighbor 
West  Virginia.  (Mr.  Thorn  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol. 


254  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

60,  p.  747.)  Other  inequalities  in  intrastate  rates  exist 
throughout  the  Union,  and  are  too  numerous  to  mention. 
Moreover,  discriminations  also  are  found  in  the  quality 
of  the  service  provided.  Shippers  in  some  states  are  re- 
quired (except  in  war  time)  to  load  cars  less  fully  than  in 
adjoining  states.  The  minimum  carloads  specified  by 
Kansas,  for  example,  are  thirty-five  per  cent,  lower  than 
the  general  standard.  (Editorial  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette, 
Vol.  63,  p.  176.)  Not  only  are  the  shippers  of  some 
states  allowed  smaller  shipments  per  car,  but  are  also 
given  undue  preference  in  the  supply  of  cars  in  time  of 
shortage,  because  certain  states  impose  especially  severe 
penalties  on  the  railroads  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  and 
the  railroads  naturally  deliver  their  equipment  to  the 
states  that  will  fine  them  most  heavily  for  delays  in 
car  supply.  (Bulletin  No.  15  of  Bureau  of  R.  R.  Eco- 
nomics, p.  10.)  Many  a  shipper  in  Wisconsin  has  said 
"  a  kingdom  for  a  car,"  when  shortages  have  resulted  in 
his  perishable  commodities  being  ruined  before  they 
could  be  shipped;  if  he  only  had  lived  in  a  state  where 
unreasonable  fines  are  imposed  for  failure  to  supply 
cars,  his  produce  might  have  reached  the  market  with- 
out spoiling.  Other  discriminations  between  citizens  of 
various  states  are  found  in  the  quality  of  train  service 
furnished  isolated  and  rural  communities.  In  North 
Dakota,  except  in  war  time,  every  one-horse  town,  village, 
or  hamlet  that  can  boast  of  a  railroad  station  is  provided 
with  at  least  one  train  each  way  daily  except  Sunday, 
because  the  North  Dakota  legislature  requires  these  trains 
to  be  run.  (Prof.  Meyers  of  U.  W.  in  R.  R.  Legisla- 
tion, p.  130.)  Wisconsin,  however,  is  less  severe  in 
its  requirements,  and  our  reasonableness  is  rewarded  by 
the  fact  that  some  communities  less  than  a  hundred  miles 
from  Madison  have  only  two  trains  each  way  per  week, 
service  one-third  as  frequent  as  the  minimum  in  North 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  255 

Dakota,  although  that  state  is  much  less  densely  popu- 
lated than  Wisconsin.  (M.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  timetable  for 
Feb.,  1918,  pp.  61-2.)  Mr.  Clements  of  the  Georgia  State 
Railroad  Commission,  a  man  whose  natural  interests  as  a 
state  commissioner  would  tend  to  make  him  uphold  state 
regulation,  is  forced  to  admit  the  favoritism  existing  un- 
der the  present  dual  regulatory  system,  for  he  says, 
"  Divergent  and  conflicting  state  policies  which  become 
the  bases  of  state  fabrics  will  continue  to  produce  irri- 
tating and  intolerable  conditions  of  discrimination,  for 
which  some  remedy  will  have  to  be  found.  I  know  of 
no  feature  of  regulation  which  demands  more  thorough 
treatment  than  this."  (In  The  Railway  Library  for  1914, 

P-  329-) 

Not  only  is  the  present  dual  system  of  regulation  open 
to  objection  because  of  the  injustice  to  the  railroads 
and  to  the  public  occasioned  by  conflicts  between  the 
forty-nine  different  regulatory  bodies,  but  also  because 
many  individual  requirements  imposed  by  the  states  re- 
sult in  great  unnecessary  hardships  to  the  railroads,  and 
hence  injure  the  public  welfare.  Many  of  the  demands 
made  by  the  states  are  without  either  "  rhyme  or  reason," 
for  they  entail  great  expense  to  the  railroads  with  only 
an  infinitesimal  improvement  in  service.  In  referring  to 
this  phase  of  railway  regulation,  Professor  Meyers,  form- 
erly of  the  faculty  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  and 
expert  in  the  control  of  public  utilities,  sizes  up  the 
situation  well  in  saying,  "  The  effort  of  state  legislatures 
have  been  without  sanity  of  judgement." 

There  are  almost  unlimited  instances  of  rates  pre- 
scribed by  state  commissions  and  legislatures  that  are 
unreasonably  low.  In  1916  freight  rates  fixed  by  the 
government  of  Nebraska  were  found  to  be  twenty  per 
cent,  too  low  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission, 
the  leading  authority  in  the  United  States  on  railway 


256  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

rates.  (Abstract  of  decision  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol. 
61,  p.  126.)  Similarly,  in  the  famous  Shreveport  Rate 
Case,  this  body  found  certain  Texas  freight  rates  to  be 
over  thirty  per  cent,  too  low.  (41  I.  C.  C.  83.)  No  won- 
der the  railroads  are  not  making  needed  improvements  if 
their  pay  is  two-thirds  of  what  it  should  be  in  many 
cases!  Another  notable  example  of  unreasonable  intra- 
state  rates  is  found  in  the  Minnesota  Rate  Case,  in  which 
certain  reductions  in  freight  and  passenger  rates  were 
found  to  amount  to  virtual  confiscation  by  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court.  (Syllabus  of  decision  in  Bulletin 
No.  15  of  Bureau  of  R.  R.  Economics.)  However,  these 
rates  are  still  in  effect  due  to  legal  entanglements  in- 
volved in  the  attempts  to  readjust  them  made  by  the 
federal  government.  Another  hopeless  fiasco  between 
state  and  nation  is  found  in  the  Illinois  Rate  Case.  Al- 
though, as  we  have  already  seen,  passenger  fares  in 
Illinois  discriminate  unjustly  against  the  citizens  of  other 
states,  including  Wisconsin,  and  although  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  has  reported  them  to  be  eighteen 
per  cent,  too  low ;  nevertheless  an  increase  in  rates  cannot 
be  effected,  due  to  the  pig-headedness  of  Illinois  authori- 
ties, and  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  re- 
cently upheld  that  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is 
not  empowered  to  raise  these  intrastate  rates.  (R.  R. 
Age  Gazette,  Vol.  64,  pp.  220-2.)  Hence  the  railroads  of 
Illinois  must  be  deprived  of  millions  of  dollars  of  sorely 
needed  revenue  annually! 

Many  of  the  states  are  unjust  in  their  service  require- 
ments, as  well  as  in  rate  fixation.  Full  Crew  laws  are 
still  in  force  in  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  a  few 
other  states.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  these  laws  are 
purely  concessions  to  the  "  Big  Four  Brotherhoods  "  be- 
cause they  require  the  railroads  to  employ  more  men 
of  these  unions.  These  Full  Crew  laws  cannot  be  justi- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  257 

fied  on  the  ground  of  increased  safety.  Most  states  in 
the  Union  have  found  no  justification  for  their  passage, 
and  have  steadily  refused  to  enact  them.  The  Full  Crew 
Law  in  New  Jersey  was  recently  repealed  because  there 
seemed  to  be  no  real  justification  for  its  existence.  (R.  R. 
Age  Gazette,  Vol.  63,  p.  896.)  Also  statistics  show  that 
there  has  been  a  less  rapid  decrease  in  accidents  in  New 
York  with  its  Full  Crew  law,  than  in  neighboring  states 
without  such  a  law.  (Statistics  of  Bureau  of  R.  R. 
Economics  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  60,  p.  406.) 
Nevertheless,  in  the  face  of  these  arguments,  a  few  stub- 
born states  retain  these  laws,  compelling  the  railroads  to 
waste  millions  in  the  employment  of  unnecessary  men. 
The  great  burden  placed  upon  the  railroads  by  these 
measures  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  Full  Crew  Law 
of  New  Jersey  alone,  when  it  was  in  force  cost  $1,700,000 
extra  a  year,  or  interest  at  five  per  cent,  on  thirty-four 
million  dollars.  (Testimony  before  Newlands  Committee 
of  Chairman  Thorn  of  R.  R.  Executive  Council.  See 
R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61,  p.  986.) 

Another  example  of  unreasonable  state  legislation  is 
found  in  the  law  of  Arizona  limiting  the  length  of  trains 
to  seventy-five  cars.  This  law  is  in  force  despite  the 
fact  that  every  other  state  in  the  Union  refused  to  adopt 
such  measures,  although  they  were  introduced  in  twenty 
legislatures.  (R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  60,  p.  1033.) 
Also  the  statistics  of  the  Bureau  of  Railway  Economics 
at  Washington  show  that  shorter  trains  tend  to  increase 
accidents,  for  there  is  greater  chance  for  collisions,  as 
more  trains  must  be  operated  if  train-lengths  are  reduced. 
Nevertheless  Arizona  burdens  the  railroads  with  unneces- 
sary expense  occasioned  by  a  law  that  defeats  the  aims  of 
the  "  safety-first  "  movement. 

A  particularly  good  example  of  unreasonable  state 
requirements  is  found  at  the  present  time.  Although  the 


258  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

railroads  have  striven  for  years  to  obtain  an  increase  in 
demurrage  rates,  or  penalties  to  shippers  for  failure  to 
unload  cars  promptly,  as  a  measure  to  relieve  the  car 
shortage  by  eliminating  long  delays  in  unloading,  many 
states  have  refused  to  "  do  their  bit "  by  allowing  the 
increases  permitted  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission and  by  the  commissions  of  other  states^  How- 
ever, one  of  the  first  acts  of  Director-General  McAdoo 
was  to  raise  these  rates  to  a  common  standard  higher 
than  had  prevailed  in  the  most  lenient  states  hitherto. 
This  is  a  good  example  of  the  apathy  of  many  states  in  co- 
operating to  improve  the  condition  of  the  railways. 
(R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  64,  p.  115.) 

There  are  many  other  examples  of  unreasonable  service 
requirements  on  the  part  of  the  states.  Some  states  per- 
sist in  accentuating  the  car  shortage  by  allowing  cars 
to  be  loaded  thirty-five  per  cent,  below  the  general  stand- 
ard. (Editorial  in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  63,  p.  176.) 
The  Colorado  government  makes  the  railroads  waste 
precious  coal  by  compelling  every  passenger  train  to  stop 
at  every  city  in  the  state  —  and  yet  some  trains  in  this 
state  do  not  stop  even  at  Racine!  (Meyer's  R.  R. 
Legislation,  p.  130.)  Other  fields  in  which  the  states 
have  been  over-stringent  in  their  service  requirements  are 
in  the  construction  of  luxurious  stations  for  small  com- 
munities, unjust  requirements  as  to  the  width  of  the  right 
of  way  and  so  forth.  (See  Statistics  in  Railway  Library 
for  1914,  p.  326.) 

The  injustice  of  state  regulation  extends  not  only  to 
rate  fixation  and  service  requirements,  but  also  to  the 
financial  operations  of  the  railways.  For  instance,  the 
New  York,  New  Haven,  and  Hartford  could  not  issue 
bonds  to  pay  for  improvements  and  maturing  obliga- 
tions because  it  could  not  gain  the  consent  of  Massa- 
chusetts, although  the  other  states  through  which  this 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  259 

line  passes  were  willing  to  have  these  securities  issued. 
The  New  York  Central  Railway,  in  increasing  its  capi- 
talization, was  recently  taxed  $600,000  by  Illinois  for 
doing  so,  although  less  than  a  fiftieth  of  its  mileage  was 
in  that  state.  It  would  be  only  just  to  the  other  states 
served  by  this  railway  that  they  should  also  tax  this 
securities  issue  proportionately,  but  if  they  were  to  do 
so,  "  America's  Greatest  Railway  System "  would  prob- 
ably go  into  the  receiver's,  hands.  Similar  unjust  financial 
policies  may  also  be  found  in  many  other  states  besides 
Massachusetts  and  Illinois.  (Testimony  of  Chairman 
Thorn  of  R.  R.  Executive  Committee  before  Newlands 
Committee  of  House  of  Representatives.  See  R.  R. 
Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61,  p.  987.) 

We  have  now  seen  the  many  evils  of  the  present  dual 
system  of  railway  regulation.  There  is  slight  hope  for 
improvement  in  the  future  under  our  existing  peace  policy 
towards  the  railroads,  for  there  is  almost  no  chance  of 
remedying  the  conflict  between  the  forty-nine  regulatory 
bodies,  with  the  resulting  expensive  duplication  and  un- 
just discrimination  without  abolishing  some  of  these 
forty-nine  organizations.  Moreover,  it  is  highly  improb- 
able that  the  states  will  ever  be  cured  of  their  policies 
of  persecuting  the  railways  by  unjust  rate  fixation,  service 
requirements,  and  financial  regulation,  all  of  which  ulti- 
mately results  in  injury  to  the  public  welfare.  The  only 
remedy  for  the  evils  of  the  present  dual  system  is  to  dis- 
pense very  largely  with  state  control  of  the  railways  and 
adopt  exclusive  federal  regulation. 

The  first  thing  to  note  in  connection  with  exclusive 
federal  regulation  is  its  practicability.  It  is  obviously 
useless  to  discuss  the  results  of  any  measure  of  reform 
until  it  is  established  that  the  proposed  system  can  actually 
be  put  into  operation.  However,  there  are  no  undue  prac- 
tical difficulties  connected  with  the  adoption  of  exclusive 


260  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

federal  railway  regulation,  for  it  is  a  simple,  unified  sys- 
tem based  on  sound  business  principles.  The  supreme 
regulatory  authority  would  be  vested  in  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission,  or  some  similar  body.  It  has  also 
been  suggested  that  a  new  Cabinet  officer,  a  Secretary 
or  Director  of  Transportation,  be  created  to  help  deter- 
mine the  policies  of  regulation.  It  would  probably  be 
impossible  for  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  alone 
to  tend  to  all  the  details  of  regulation,  but  several  subordi- 
nate bodies  can  be  established  to  aid  in  discharging  the 
functions  of  railway  control  that  are  of  purely  local  im- 
portance. The  relationship  of  these  inferior  commissions 
to  the  central  authority  at  Washington  would  be  much 
the  same  as  that  of  the  United  States  District  Courts 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  Each  of  these  subordinate  boards 
would  be  assigned  to  a  district  of  only  a  few  states,  so 
that  the  federal  government  would  exercise  careful  super- 
vision over  all  the  details  of  the  railroad  problem.  The 
most  important  thing  to  note,  however;  is  that  these 
auxiliary  bodies  would  be  subordinate  to  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission,  which  would  regulate  their  poli- 
cies in  the  interest  of  uniformity.  Hence  there  would 
be  unanimity  of  action  and  intelligent  cooperation  in 
railway  regulation,  instead  of  eternal  contradiction  and 
conflict  between  forty-nine  different  railway  commissions, 
none  of  supreme  authority. 

The  experiences  of  foreign  countries  with  railway 
regulation  should  remove  any  doubt  in  your  minds  as  to 
whether  exclusive  federal  regulation  is  practical.  There 
is  hardly  a  nation  in  the  world  that  does  not  give  the 
central  government  complete  jurisdiction  in  railway  af- 
fairs, for  the  regulation  of  railways  is  essentially  a  na- 
tional problem.  France  and  England  are  the  two  great- 
est foreign  nations  that  do  not  have  government  owner-, 
ship  of  the  railways,  and  exclusive  federal  regulation  has  . 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  261 

met  with  complete  success  in  both  of  these  countries, 
despite  the  fact  that  they  resemble  the  United  States 
in  regard  to  the  absence  of  strong,  despotic  central  au- 
thorities. English  railways  are  regulated  by  the  federal 
Board  of  Trade  and  Railway  and  Canal  Commission, 
and  according  to  Professor  Raper,  author  of  one  of  the 
most  celebrated  books  on  transportation,  "  England  is  the 
most  perfect  example  of  strictly  private  (railway)  in- 
corporation." (Professor  Raper,  Railway  Transporta- 
tion, p.  54.)  France,  although  always  true  to  the  ideals 
of  "  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,"  does  not  fear  cen- 
tralized authority  so  much  that  she  follows  our  policy  of 
delegating  forty-nine  subordinate  governments  to  do  one 
job  of  essentially  national  importance.  Instead,  the  fed- 
eral Ministry  of  Public  Works  is  given  complete  authority 
in  railway  affairs,  and  according  to  Professor  Raper, 
"'  State  control  of  private  operation  has  been  remark- 
ably efficient"  in  France.  (Ibid.) 

However,  we  do  not  need  to  cross  the  waters  to  see 
the  practicability  of  exclusive  federal  regulation.  We 
can  listen  to  the  advice  of  our  own  practical  railway  men. 
Exclusive  federal  regulation  is  recommended  by  many 
railway  executives,  including  Howard  Elliot,  and  Presi- 
dent Rea  of  the  Pennsylvania  System,  "  The  standard 
railroad  of  America."  (See  Elliot's  address  to  U.  S. 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  President  Rea's  article  in 
Railway  Library  for  1914,  p.  35.)  Unified  central  control 
is  also  advocated  by  state  railway  commissioners,  al- 
though their  natural  interests  would  make  them  up- 
hold state  authority,  for  exclusive  federal  regulation  is 
advocated  by  A.  P.  Ramstedt,  President  of  the  Idaho 
Public  Utilities  Commission.  (R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol. 
61,  p.  1134.) 

So  much  for  the  practicability  of  exclusive  federal 
regulation  —  we  have  seen  that  it  is  a  possible  reform, 


262  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

and  that  there  are  no  great  or  undue  difficulties  con- 
nected with  its  adoption.  We  must  now  consider  whether 
the  proposed  system  is  just  and  desirable,  as  well  as 
practical.  A  few  minutes'  study  will  show  that  exclusive 
federal  regulation  is  fair  to  all  and  highly  desirable,  for 
it  remedies  the  evils  of  the  present  dual  system  without 
introducing  new  evils. 

We  have  already  seen  the  inherent  defects  in  our  pres- 
ent railway  policy.  We  have  seen  how  conflicts  between 
state  and  nation,  and  between  the  states  themselves,  con- 
tinue to  confuse  railway  operation  and  produce  unjust 
and  undemocratic  discriminations  in  the  transportation 
facilities  provided  the  public.  We  have  also  seen  how 
many  states  persist  in  unreasonable  regulation  that  im- 
poses unnecessary  hardships  upon  the  railroads,  result- 
ing ultimately  in  injury  to  the  public  welfare.  Under 
exclusive  federal  regulation,  all  these  evils  and  injus- 
tices would  be  next  to  impossible.  Railroad  regulation, 
vested  in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and 
subordinate  boards,  would  at  last  be  placed  upon  a  sound 
basis,  for  we  would  then  have  one  railway  policy  in- 
stead of  forty-nine.  Unity  and  cooperation,  rather  than 
conflict  and  controversy,  would  be  the  watchwords  of 
regulation.  No  longer  would  millions  of  people  through- 
out the  Union  be  injured  by  intolerable  favoritism  re- 
sulting from  diversity  in  regulation,  for  the  central  au- 
thority at  Washington  would  establish  a  uniform,  con- 
sistent standard  of  rates  and  service.  Under  exclusive 
federal  regulation,  the  railroads  would  no  longer  be  com- 
pelled to  "  haul  coal  to  Newcastle,"  for  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  is  an  expert  organization  that  has 
never  imitated  the  states  in  their  policy  of  burdening  the 
railroads  with  millions  of  extra  expense  in  return  for 
hypothetical  benefits.  Instead,  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  has  a  reputation  of  being  reasonably  fair 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  263 

to  the  railroads,  and  of  using  good  horse  sense  in  their 
regulation.  Thus  exclusive  federal  regulation  would  re- 
move present  conflicts  and  liberate  the  railroads  from  the 
unnecessary  burdens  imposed  upon  them  by  many  states, 
and  which  in  the  last  analysis  fall  most  heavily  upon  the 
general  public. 

Having  seen  that  exclusive  federal  regulation  will 
remedy  present  evils,  let  us  now  turn  to  the  possibility 
of  its  introducing  new  evils.  A  few  men  insist  in  claim- 
ing that  nationalization  of  railroad  regulation  would  be 
unjust  because  it  is  alleged  that  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  is  so  generous  to  the  railroads  that  it  would 
fail  to  regulate  them  in  the  interest  of  the  public  in  gen- 
eral. This  argument  is  absolutely  without  foundation  in 
actual  fact.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has 
never  been  too  lenient  to  the  railroads;  it  has  been  too 
severe  if  anything,  for  it  has  repeatedly  forbidden  them 
increases,  including  the  fifteen  per  cent,  raise  they  ap- 
plied for  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  Not  only  in  the 
regulation  of  rates,  but  also  in  the  control  of  service,  has 
the  federal  government  been  entirely  just  to  the  public. 
Its  drastic  orders  as  to  car  supply  in  the  present  crisis 
have  performed  an  invaluable  service  in  reducing  the 
car  shortage.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has 
shown  its  ability  and  propensity  to  aid  the  public  by  the 
way  it  has  freed  shippers  from  the  evils  of  rebating,  so 
prevalent  at  the  beginning  of  this  century.  It  has  mani- 
fested its  fairness  to  labor  in  its  able  enforcement  of 
the  Adamson  and  Sixteen  Hours  laws.  The  only  other 
interest  that  exclusive  federal  regulation  is  alleged  to 
injure  is  that  of  the  states,  for  they  will  be  deprived  of 
their  powers  of  regulation.  However,  railway  control 
is  essentially  and  vitally  a  national  problem,  and  ex- 
clusive federal  regulation  will  still  leave  the  states  the 
part  of  railway  control  that  is  of  great  importance  to 


264  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

them,  for  they  will  still  be  allowed  to  raise  revenue  from 
the  railroads  by  means  of  any  taxation  at  all  within 
the  bounds  of  reason.  Nationalization  of  railway  con^ 
trol  will  not  introduce  new  evils  in  the  transportation 
situation,  for  a  short  study  of  the  proposition  and  of  past 
railway  history  completely  discounts  the  cries  of  "  wolf, 
wolf  "  uttered  by  dyed-in-the-wool  believers  in  the  divin- 
ity of  states'  rights. 

Final  proof  of  the  justice  of  exclusive  federal  regula- 
tion is  found  in  the  action  of  chambers  of  commerce  and 
boards  of  trade  throughout  the  country  in  advocating  the 
nationalization  of  railway  regulation.  The  railway  com- 
mittee of  the  national  United  States  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce in  its  recent  report  has  expressed  itself  unequivo- 
cally in  favor  of  exclusive  federal  regulation.  (Re- 
printed in  R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  63,  p.  508.)  Also 
the  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Commerce,  representing  the 
third  largest  city  in  America,  has  gone  on  record  as  advo- 
cating this  reform.  Among  the  other  organizations 
which  have  adopted  formal  resolutions  in  favor  of  ex- 
clusive federal  regulation  are  the  Merchants'  Associa- 
tion of  New  York,  the  National  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion, the  National  Lumber  Dealers'  Association,  the 
Southern  Pine  Association,  the  National  Leather  Asso- 
ciation, and  the  American  Hardware  Manufacturers'  As- 
sociation. (R.  R.  Age  Gazette,  Vol.  61,  p.  114.)  More- 
over, this  list  is  only  partial,  while  not  a  single  organ- 
ization similar  to  those  mentioned  has  ever  been  reported 
as  being  against  the  nationalization  of  railway  control. 
Inasmuch  as  exclusive  federal  regulation  is  so  over- 
whelmingly endorsed  by  commercial  organizations  similar 
to  your  own,  there  must  be  substantial  justice  on  the  case 
for  this  reform. 

Good  transportation  facilities  are  essential  to  the  na- 
tion's life  and  progress.  The  distressing  state  of  our 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  265 

railroads  at  present  is  well  known  to  all  of  you.  Much  of 
this  railroad  malady  is  due  to  exceptional  war  condi- 
tions, but  nevertheless,  according  to  Secretary  McAdoo 
and  all  other  transportation  authorities,  the  railroads  have 
not  developed  along  a  sound  peace  basis,  for  their  finan- 
cial status  is  bad,  and  intensive  development  and  new 
extensions  have  not  kept  pace  with  the  country's  normal 
growth.  Government  operation  has,  we  hope,  unraveled 
the  transportation  tangle  during  the  duration  of  the  war, 
but  the  administration's  policy  is  only  a  temporary  war 
expedient.  The  fate  of  the  railways  will  be  one  of  the 
most  important  and  pressing  problems  which  will  arise  at 
the  advent  of  peace.  Everyone  admits  that  a  vital  change 
is  needed  in  our  policy  towards  the  railroads  in  time  of 
peace.  Some  economists  and  legislators  go  so  far  as  to 
advocate  permanent  government  'ownership,  which  is 
nothing  more  or  less  than  the  most  complete  expression 
of  exclusive  federal  control  and  regulation.  However, 
Director-General  McAdoo  and  most  authorities  expect  to 
see  the  railroads  returned  to  private  operation  after  the 
war,  but  it  will  be  private  management  upon  a  different 
basis  than  formerly,  for  no  one  wishes  to  see  a  recur- 
rence of  the  existing  calamity  produced  by  our  regulatory 
policies  towards  the  railroads. 

Exclusive  federal  regulation  is  the  easiest  and  most 
logical  way  to  put  the  railroads  upon  a  sound  constructive 
basis,  for  the  control  of  the  railroads,  is  essentially  a  na- 
tional problem,  rather  than  a  state  one.  Other  schemes 
of  railway  reform  burden  the  public  by  substantial  rate 
increases  or  expensive  government  loans.  Exclusive  fed- 
eral regulation,  however,  will  rehabilitate  the  railroads 
by  the  elimination  of  needless  waste.  It  will  substitute 
a  policy  of  cooperation  and  unity  for  one  of  conflict  and 
controversy.  The  railroads  will  be  freed  from  the  con- 
fusion and  duplication  resulting  from  being  forced  to 


266  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

serve  forty-nine  masters.  The  substitution  of  national 
for  dual  regulation  will  put  the  railroads  in  a  sound 
business  condition  by  saving  them  tens  of  millions  of 
dollars  taken  from  them  annually  by  petty,  imbecilic  state 
regulations  that  are  "penny  wise  and  pound  foolish," 
and  that  do  not  improve  the  real  standard  of  service. 
Exclusive  federal  regulation  will  not  only  put  the  rail- 
roads on  their  feet,  but  will  directly  benefit  the  public  by 
establishing  a  simple,  uniform  regulatory  system  that 
will  abolish  the  intolerable  discriminations  resulting  from 
conflicts  between  forty-nine  governments.  Shippers  and 
travellers  cannot  possibly  be  injured  under  the  proposed 
system,  for  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has 
always  been  the  zealous  guardian  of  their  rights.  Even 
the  most  ardent  adherents  to  the  state  rights'  theory  will 
have  no  just  cause  to  complain  of  exclusive  federal  regu- 
lation, for  control  of  the  railways  is  essentially  a  na- 
tional problem,  and  in  any  case  the  states  will  be  left 
the  power  of  taxation,  their  one  real  interest  in  railroad 
regulation. 

Everything  points  towards  greater  nationalization  of 
railway  control.  Exclusive  federal  regulation,  carried  to 
its  most  extreme  form,  is  government  ownership,  but  if 
such  a  radical  reform  is  unnecessary,  it  means  simply  a 
retention  of  private  ownership,  with  sane,  standardized 
regulation  in  its  most  logical  and  simple  form.  Gen- 
tlemen, there  is  every  reason  that  you  should  agree  with 
your  fellow  Boards  of  Trade  and  Chambers  of  Commerce 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  advocate  that,  except 
for  street  railroads  and  interurbans,  the  federal  gov- 
ernment should  be  given  exclusive  permanent  jurisdic- 
tion in  all  those  phases  of  railway  control  and  regulation 
now  entrusted  to  the  states. 


APPENDIX  D.    4 

SPECIAL  ARTICLE  (REFUTATION) 
(The  Minimum  Wage) 

CAMPAIGN  AGAINST  SWEATING1 

"  More  than  half  the  people  employed  in  the  fac- 
tories and  stores  investigated  in  New  York  City 
get  less  than  $8.00  a  week." —  Dr.  Howard  Wool- 
ston,  Director  of  Investigation  for  the  New  York 
State  Factory  Commission. 

It  is  all  very  well  to  say  of  a  woman  that  "  she  is  work- 
ing for  her  living,"  but  suppose  she  is  working  and  not 
making  her  living.  What  are  you  to  say  then  ?  You  can 
remark  that  you  are  indeed  very  sorry,  and  leave  the  mat- 
ter there.  Or  you  can  say  with  more  piety  than  wisdom 
that  wages  are  determined  by  natural  laws  which  man 
must  let  alone.  Or  you  can  insist  that  she  is  being 
sweated ;  that  a  business  which  does  not  pay  a  living  wage 
is  not  paying  its  labor  costs ;  that  such  businesses  are  hu- 
manly insolvent,  for  in  paying  less  than  a  living  wage 
they  are  guilty  of  as  bad  business  practice  and  far  worse 
moral  practice  than  if  they  were  paying  dividends  out  of 
assets. 

Every  one  knows  what  to  think  of  a  get-rich-quick  con- 
cern which  asks  people  to  subscribe  to  its  capital  stock, 
and  then  uses  the  money  invested  to  pay  profits.  We  call 
it  a  fraud.  When  a  railroad  goes  on  paying  dividends 
without  charging  up  deterioration,  people  speak  of  it  not 
as  a  fraud  but  as  bad  business.  But  when  a  mercantile 
establishment  pays  its  labor  less  than  labor  can  live  on,  it 

1  By  Walter  Lippmann.  New  Republic.  2 :  sup  1-8.  March 
27,  1915. 

267 


268  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

is  combining  the  evils  of  the  mismanaged  railroad  and  the 
get-rich-quick  concern.  It  is  showing  a  profit  it  has  not 
honorably  earned,  it  is  paying  a  dividend  out  of  its  vital 
assets;  and  is,  out  of  the  lives,  the  health,  and  the  happi- 
ness of  its  employees.  A  business  that  exists  on  labor 
paid  less  than  a  living  wage  is  not  a  business  at  all,  for 
it  is  not  paying  its  fixed  charges.  They  are  being  paid 
either  by  the  family  of  the  woman  worker  or  by  her 
friends,  or  by  private  charities,  or  by  the  girl  herself  in 
slow  starvation. 

There  are  few  to  deny  the  truth  of  these  general  ideas. 
Even  the  people  who  are  fighting  minimum  wage  legisla- 
tion have  not  attempted  to  deny  that  a  self-respecting 
business  should  pay  the  full  cost  of  its  labor.  Nor  has 
any  serious  attempt  been  made  to  impugn  the  damning 
wage  statistics  revealed  in  one  state  after  another  and 
clinched  by  the  Factory  Investigation  Commission  in  New 
York.  We  know  now  that  thousands  of  women  are  be- 
low the  line  which  the  most  moderate  estimate  can  call  a 
living  wage.  Knowing  this  fact,  we  know  that  something 
must  be  disastrously  wrong;  knowing  it,  we  must  act  to 
remedy  it  if  we  can,  and  no  intelligent  person  will  say 
that  we  are  meddling  in  what  does  not  concern  us.  The 
spectacle  of  paper-box,  shirt  and  candy  manufacturers 
and  department-store  keepers  living  on  the  profits  of  a 
business  that  does  not  pay  its  employees  a  living  wage  is 
so  absurd  that  we  begin  to  wonder  what  are  the  serious 
arguments  against  minimum  wage  legislation. 

Fortunately  Mr.  Rome  G.  Brown  knows  all  the  argu- 
ments, serious  and  otherwise.  Mr.  Brown,  let  it  be  said, 
is  an  attorney  who  has  fought  living  wage  legislation  in 
various  states,  and  is  the  author  of  the  brief  filed  before 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Oregon  case.  He  is  a  kind  of 
specialist  in  the  business  of  finding  fault  with  the  mini- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  269 

mum  wage,  and  so  no  injustice  can  be  done  him  or  his 
cause  by  taking  up  the  points  he  raises. 

Mr.  Brown's  latest  utterance  is  dated  February  19, 
19 1 5,1  and  it  seems  that  Mr.  Brown  is  no  longer  opposed 
to  the  minimum  wage.  He  is  opposed  to  the  compulsory 
minimum  wage,  but  he  is  for  the  ethical  minimum  wage. 
"  Compulsion,"  says  Mr.  Brown,  "  stifles  the  humanitarian 
motive."  Above  all  things,  Mr.  Brown  does  not  wish  to 
stifle  that.  He  does  not  say  that  $6  a  week  is  a  good 
wage.  What  he  says  is  that  any  attempt  to  force  the 
employer  to  raise  it  would  destroy  the  finer  bloom  of 
morality. 

His  action  ceases  to  be  virtuous  or  moral  when  once  you 
have  enacted  into  a  statute  the  precept  of  the  Golden  Rule,  and 
when  its  observance  is  enforced  under  the  threat  of  fine 
and  imprisonment.  Actions  otherwise  virtuous  —  of  benev- 
olence, of  charity,  of  neighborly  love  —  are  deprived  of  all 
elements  of  morality  when  performed  under  compulsion. 

And  so,  rather  than  take  away  from  the  act  of  raising 
wages  all  elements  of  morality,  Mr.  Brown  would  leave 
wages  where  they  are.  It  is  obviously  high-minded  of 
him,  and  exceedingly  far-sighted.  For  here  we  see  a 
leading  attorney  fighting  step  by  step  to  preserve  the 
quintessence  of  morality  for  employers  toward  that  hypo- 
thetical time  when  they  decide  of  their  own  free  will  to 
raise  wages.  At  this  historic  moment,  however,  we  are 
simply  in  the  happy  position  of  knowing  that  when  em- 
ployers abolish  the  starvation  wage  they  will  do  so  with 
unblemished  ethical  motives.  There  is  indescribable  com- 
fort in  the  thought. 

Yet  we  dare  not  ignore  Mr.  Brown.  He  is  the  heavy 
artillery  on  the  other  side.  So,  leaving  aside  his  con- 

1  Annual  dinner  of  National  Retail  Dry  Goods  Association. 


270  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

tributions  to  morals  as  not  altogether  inspiring,  we  must 
proceed  to  consider  him  as  an  economist. 

"  You  cannot  legislate  efficiency,"  says  Mr.  Brown. 
"When  you  compel  an  employer  to  pay  a  wage  which  is 
fixed  regardless  of  the  workers'  efficiency,  you  are  leg- 
islating a  forced  gratuity  to  the  worker,  no  matter  that 
the  wage  be  measured  by  the  cost  of  living  or  by  the 
other  standard  which  disregards  its  fair  worth."  There 
you  have  in  compact  form  the  objection  to  a  legal  mini- 
mum wage  which  is  most  persistent  in  people's  minds. 
They  say  to  themselves,  "  How  can  you  force  an  em- 
ployer to  pay  a  girl  more  than  she  is  worth?"  Isn't 
that  against  all  business,  common  sense  and  the  laws  of 
economics?  What  right  has  the  state  to  legislate  charity 
into  the  pay  envelope  ?  Is  n't  it  absolutely  wrong  to  force 
any  woman  to  receive  more  wages  than  she  earns? 

The  answer  is  that  it  might  be  wrong  if  there  were  any 
way  of  telling  how  much  she  is  worth,  or  what  she  earns. 
We  know  what  women  workers  receive,  but  no  one  has 
the  least  idea  whether  their  income  has  anything  to  do 
with  their  productivity  or  their  efficiency.  If  there  is 
one  thing  the  Factory  Investigating  Commission  made 
clear,  it  is  that  wages  for  unskilled  women's  work  in  the 
sweated  trades  are  not  based  upon  any  recognizable 
standard  of  efficiency  or  value. 

Dr.  Howard  Woolston,  who  directed  the  work  of  the 
New  York  State  Factory  Investigating  Commission,  has 
pointed  this  out : J 

Even  for  identical  work  in  the  same  locality  striking  differ- 
ences in  pay  are  found.  In  one  wholesale  candy  factory  in 
Manhattan  no  male  laborer  and  no  female  hand-dipper  is  paid 
as  much  as  $8  a  week,  nor  does  any  female  packer  receive 
as  much  as  $5.50.  In  another  establishment  of  the  same 

1  The  Survey,  February  6,   1915. 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  271 

class  in  the  same  borough  every  male  laborer  gets  $8  or  over, 
and  more  than  half  the  female  dippers  and  packers  exceed  the 
rates  given  in  the  former  plant.  Again,  one  large  depart- 
ment store  in  Manhattan  pays  86  per  cent  of  its  saleswomen 
$10  or  over;  another  pays  86  per  cent  of  them  less.  When 
a  representative  paper-box  manufacturer  learned  that  cutters 
in  neighboring  factories  receive  as  little  as  $10  a  week,  he 
expressed  surprise,  because  he  always  pays  $15  or  more. 
This  indicates  that  there  is  no  well-established  standard  of 
wages  in  certain  trades.  The  amounts  are  fixed  by  in- 
dividual bargain,  and  labor  is  "worth"  as  much  as  the  em- 
ployer agrees  to  pay. 

These  figures  show  pretty  clearly  that  two  employees 
in  the  same  district  making  the  same  kind  of  goods  have 
no  way  of  standardizing  wages  on  any  basis  of  value. 
That  is  why  Mr.  Brown,  talking  about  wages  depending 
upon  "  wage-worth,"  is  using  a  catchy  phrase  and  a  neat 
theory  which  in  practice  mean  literally  nothing  at  all. 
The  kind  of  women's  work  to  which  the  minimum  wage 
would  apply  has  no  standard  by  which  wages  are  fixed. 
Women  get  what  they  get,  by  the  custom  of  the  shop, 
by  the  whim  of  the  superintendent,  by  arbitrary  decision. 
No  law  of  supply  and  demand,  no  sense  of  "  wage- 
worth,"  determines  that  a  "stripper"  in  order  to  earn 
fifteen  cents  an  hour  must  paste  paper  on  the  side  of 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  boxes,  and  a  "  hand-dipper  " 
must  coat  about  seven  hundred  and  twenty  pieces  of 
cream  candy  with  chocolate,  while  a  hand-ironer  in  the 
laundry  will  earn  twenty-five  cents  by  pressing  four  plain 
shirts. 

With  these  facts  before  us,  suppose  that  we  raised  the 
wages  of  hand-dippers  in  candy  manufacturing  from 
fifteen  to  seventeen  cents  an  hour,  and  thereby  saved 
the  girls  from  the  most  extreme  hardships  of  poverty. 
By  what  standard  would  the  Mr.  Browns  be  able  to 
say  that  we  were  paying  this  girl  more  than  she  is 


272  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

worth,  that  the  extra  cents  were  a  "  forced  gratuity," 
or  that  we  were  interfering  with  the  laws  of  supply  and 
demand  ? 

For  what  in  the  name  of  sanity  are  these  economic  laws 
as  they  appear  in  practical  life?  Mr.  Brown  and  others 
talk  about  the  value  of  cooperation,  and  how  fine  it  is  for 
the  employers  to  raise  wages  voluntarily.  Yes,  but  why 
js  it  fine  ?  Is  n't  it  disastrous  to  tamper  with  the  economic 
law,  or  are  we  to  understand  that  the  economic  law  has 
no  terrors  when  violated  by  the  good  will  of  the  em- 
ployer? Or  perhaps  may  we  assume  that  economic  law, 
as  Mr.  Brown  uses  the  phrase,  is  nothing  but  the  will 
of  the  employer? 

I  am  forced  to  believe  it.  I  am  forced  to  conclude 
from  much  study  of  Mr.  Brown  that  whatever  happens 
to  exist  is  "  natural "  and  "  according  to  law,"  that  any 
change  inaugurated  by  the  workers  or  by  public  opinion 
is  "  artificial,"  but  that  any  change  created  by  employers 
is  merely  economic  law  working  itself  out  to  beneficent 
ends. 

The  phrase  "  economic  law  "  on  the  lips  of  men  like 
Mr.  Brown  is  nothing  more  than  sheer  buncombe  which 
conceals  a  prejudice.  It  belongs  to  the  same  grade  of  in- 
telligence which  says,  "  You  cannot  make  water  run  up 
hill,"  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  you  can  make  it  run 
up  to  the  top  of  the  highest  sky-scraper;  which  says, 
"  You  must  n't  interfere  with  nature,"  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  join  oceans  at  Panama,  deflect  rivers,  create 
lakes,  move  mountains,  clear  jungles,  abolish  typhoid,  fly 
in  the  air,  swim  under  the  water,  tunnel  the  earth. 

In  the  meantime  Mr.  Brown  is  wasting  fine  words. 
What  he  calls  natural  law  is  really  an  amazing  and  dam- 
nable inefficiency  on  the  part  of  employers.  In  these  trades 
where  women  are  employed  and  sweated  we  are  dealing 
not  with  inexorable  laws  but  with  thoughtless,  stupid, 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  273 

careless,  uneducated  employers.  Strangely  enough,  they 
are  only  too  ready  to  describe  the  inefficiency  of  the  girls 
they  employ.  Of  course  the  girls  are  inefficient.  What  else 
can  one  expect  from  the  present  housing,  schooling,  and 
working  conditions  open  to  them?  But  for  every  score 
against  the  incompetence  of  the  workers  there  is  at  least 
one  score  against  the  incompetence  of  the  management, 
and  it  is  time  the  general  public  realized  that  these  manu- 
facturers and  retailers  who  will  be  affected  by  the  mini- 
mum wage  are  proved  by  the  facts  to  be  profoundly  in- 
competent business  men.  When  they  cry  out  against 
"  interferences,"  those  who  know  the  facts  laugh.  Those 
employers  who  wish  to  be  regarded  as  self-respecting 
captains  of  industry  literally  do  not  know  how  to  run 
their  own  business,  and  far  from  the  state's  interfering 
with  them  by  investigation,  interference  is  more  likely  to 
prove  their  salvation. 

The  New  York  Commissioners  unearthed  the  most 
ludicrous  inefficiency.1  They  found  employers  who  kept 
their  pay-rolls  in  pocket-memorandum  books;  employers 
who  had  no  knowledge  of  rates  paid  by  competitors  for 
similar  labor;  employers  whose  rates  varied  as  much  as 
fifty  per  cent  in  the  same  neighborhood ;  whose  labor  cost 
varied  as  much  as  from  seventeen  per  cent  to  thirty-nine 
per  cent  in  the  same  line  of  work.  They  found  seasonal 
fluctuations  which  were  violent.  They  found  that  in 
eleven  large  retail  stores  in  New  York  City  44,000  new 
names  were  added  during  the  year  and  42,000  names  were 
dropped.  This  was  to  maintain  an  average  working  force 
of  27,000.  In  box  and  candy  factories  nineteen  plants 
employed  3,400  persons  to  maintain  a  force  of  1,700.  The 
time  lost  between  jobs  is  large.  Of  1,500  women  inter- 
viewed, 1,000  had  lost  an  average  of  one  month  in  the 
preceding  year.  Obviously  the  labor  market  in  sweated 

1  These  figures  are  furnished  by  Dr.  Woolston. 


274  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

industries  is  not  a  model  of  intelligence  and  foresight. 

If  this  welter  of  inefficiency  is  the  product  of  "  natural 
law/'  every  civilized  person  will  cry  out  for  the  inter- 
ference of  human  law. 

But  two  terrible  results  are  prophesied:  i,  the  mini- 
mum wage  will  drive  men  out  of  business;  2,  it  will 
raise  prices.  Mr.  Brown  uses  both  threats,  though  it 
is  a  little  difficult  to  see  how  a  business  which  had  been 
extinguished  could  raise  its  prices.  The  idea  is,  I  be- 
lieve, that  some  firms  will  go  to  the  wall,  and  that  the 
remaining  ones  will  recoup  by  raising  prices.  These  fears 
are,  as  we  shall  see  later,  based  on  the  theoretical  guesses, 
rather  than  actual  probabilities.  For  the  moment  I  wish 
to  consider  a  third  possibility  based  on  the  experience  of 
the  brush  industry  in  Massachusetts.  Brush  making,  it 
should  be  said,  is  the  first  industry  in  the  country  in 
which  the  minimum  wage  has  been  fixed  by  a  wage  board. 
Let  me  tell  the  incident  in  Mr.  Rome  G.  Brown's  own 
words : 

One  brush  concern,  since  the  minimum  wage  for  brush 
makers  took  effect,  has  discharged  over  one  hundred  of  its 
unskilled  employees  and  has  reorganized  its  methods  of 
work  so  that  Its  less  skilled  labor  is  done  by  those  who 
also  perform  more  skilled  work;  and  at  a  total  wage  which 
is  $40,000  a  year  less  than  that  paid  formerly. 

In  other  words,  the  effect  of  the  minimum  wage  has 
been  to  raise  wages,  eliminate  a  hundred  of  the  most 
unskilled,  and  increase  efficiency  so  much  that  the  cost  of 
labor  is  $40,000  less  than  it  was.  One  would  think  Mr. 
Brown  might  be  led  to  confess  that  this  particular  firm 
of  brush  makers  had  been  a  pretty  inefficient  organization. 
Not  Mr.  Brown.  He  is  not  in  the  business  of  admitting 
inefficiency  among  employers.  This  firm  of  brush  makers, 
he  tells  us,  was  not  uneconomical ;  it  was  unselfish.  And 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  275 

when  the  state  brought  its  brutal  hand  down  upon  these 
sensitive  brush  makers  the  finer  moral  qualities  disap- 
peared : 

In  self-defense  against  the  arbitrary  interference  of  the 
state  with  its  business,  it  is  now  forced  to  figure  its  wage 
scales  on  a  selfish  basis. 

The  result  is  that  it  pays  a  higher  wage  and  saves 
$40,000  a  year.  But  what  some  people  may  wish  to  know 
is  whether  this  particular  firm  in  the  old  days,  when  it 
was  on  its  unselfish  and  inefficient  basis,  was  applying 
those  natural  laws  of  economics  about  which  Mr.  Brown 
so  graciously  instructed  the  Supreme  Court. 

Let  us  assume  that  the  Minimum  Wage  act  is  passed 
in  New  York.  The  Commission  is  created,  and  it  pro- 
ceeds to  establish  wages  boards  in  four  industries  —  paper 
boxes,  candy,  millinery,  and  retail  dry  goods.  These 
boards,  after  investigating  the  cost  of  living  and  the  exist- 
ing wage  scales,  order  a  general  raise  of  wages  from 
a  median  of  six  dollars  to  eight  dollars.  Let  us  assume 
that  these  industries  are  not  able  to  improve  their  effi- 
ciency, are  not  able  to  do  what  the  firm  of  Massachusetts 
brush  makers  did.  Let  us  assume  that  higher  wages  will 
mean  no  increased  productivity  among  the  women  work- 
ers. Under  these  circumstances,  what  would  the  mini- 
mum wage  cost  the  manufacturer  in  cutting  down  his 
profits,  or  the  consumer  in  raising  prices? 

Suppose  that  the  whole  cost  is  borne  by  the  consumer. 
Then  if  work-shirts  cost  three  dollars  a  dozen,  and  the 
labor  of  sewing  them  is  paid  sixty  cents,  when  we  raise 
wages  ten  per  cent  the  labor  cost  becomes  sixty-six  cents. 
The  price  instead  of  being  three  dollars  becomes  three 
dollars  and  six  cents.  In  other  words,  while  the  worker 
receives  a  ten  per  cent  increase,  the  consumer  pays  only 
a  two  per  cent  increase. 


276  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

It  is  estimated  that  to  raise  the  wages  of  2,000  young 
women  in  New  York  candy  factories  from  five  dollars 
and  seventy-five  cents  to  eight  dollars,  confectioners  in 
order  to  cover  the  cost  would  have  to  charge  eighteen 
cents  more  per  hundred  pounds  of  candy.  The  profits  in 
department  stores  average  over  five  per  cent  on  a  year's 
business.  But  as  the  stock  is  turned  five  or  six  times 
annually,  the  yield  on  the  investment  is  twenty-five  per 
cent  to  thirty  per  cent.  By  raising  the  wages  of  girls 
under  eighteen  to  six  dollars,  and  of  women  over  eight- 
een to  nine  dollars,  the  cost  might  be  increased  one  and 
one-quarter  per  cent.  If  this  were  taken  from  profits 
instead  of  being  added  to  the  price,  it  would  reduce  the 
return  to  about  nineteen  per  cent.  The  reason  why  these 
figures  are  so  low  is  that  the  whole  cost  of  labor  in 
these  sweated  industries  is  a  small  fraction  of  the  manu- 
facturing cost.  In  the  case  of  paper  boxes,  labor  is  a 
charge  of  from  seventeen  per  cent  to  thirty  per  cent  of 
the  market  price;  in  candy  manufacture,  the  average  labor 
cost  is  about  thirteen  per  cent  of  the  manufacturing  ex- 
penses. By  raising  that  charge  we  raise  the  total  cost 
very  little. 

In  the  face  of  all  this,  what  becomes  of  the  cry  that 
we  are  proposing  to  ruin  business?  It  takes  its  place, 
does  n't  it,  beside  all  the  other  exclamations  which  have 
accompanied  factory  laws  since  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  ?  It  is  the  cry  which  has  accompanied 
every  effort  to  clean  up  working  conditions,  protect 
mines,  guard  the  life  of  child  and  women  workers.  Em- 
ployers are  always  threatening  a  migration  to  less  civil- 
ized countries.  Yet  somehow  they  stay  where  they  are. 
A  few  go.  In  Victoria,  one  manufacturer  -in  a  panic 
moved  out  before  the  law  went  into  effect.  He  moved 
over  to  Tasmania.  Then  Tasmania  adopted  the  same 
law.  In  Victoria  when  the  law  was  first  passed  in  1896 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  277 

there  were  3,370  factories  employing  40,814  people;  after 
fifteen  years'  experience  of  the  law  there  were  5,638 
factories  employing  88,694  people. 

But  suppose  a  few  employers  do  move  out  of  the 
state  —  say  from  New  York  to  New  Jersey.  How  long 
will  New  Jersey  tolerate  their  production  of  pauperism, 
disease  and  degradation,  and  its  costs  in  charities,  hos- 
pitals and  sanatoria?  Just  about  as  long  as  it  takes 
New  Jersey  to  realize  the  ridiculous  social  cost  of 
sweating. 

Yet  we  are  told  that  some  employers  will  go  to  the 
wall.  Able  neither  to  raise  prices  nor  increase  efficiency, 
they  will  fail.  To  them  the  community  must  reply  with 
simple  kindliness  that  they  belong  with  the  landlords  who 
own  firetraps  and  conduct  nests  of  disease  and  crime. 
They  would  better  go  out  of  business  and  make  way  for 
better  men. 

It  is  often  claimed  that  the  minimum  wage  will  become 
the  maximum.  President  Wilson  during  his  campaign 
gave  an  impetus  to  this  argument  by  saying: 

If  a  minimum  wage  were  established  by  law,  the  great 
majority  of  employers  would  take  occasion  to  bring  their 
wage  scale  as  near  as  might  be  down  to  the  level  of  the 
minimum;  and  it  would  be  very  awkward  for  the  work- 
ingmen  to  resist  that  process  successfully,  because  it  would 
be  dangerous  to  strike  against  the  authority  of  the  federal 
government. 

Of  course  there  is  at  the  moment  no  question  of  a 
federal  law.  We  are  discussing  state  laws,  and  as  re- 
gards New  York  a  law  which  is  to  have  no  legal  com- 
pulsion behind  it.  We  are  proposing  to  have  a  state 
commission  of  three  persons  select  a  small  number  of 
sweated  industries  where  women  and  children  are  em- 
ployed, and  establish  for  those  industries  wages  boards 


278  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

consisting  of  six  representatives  of  the  employer,  six  of 
the  workmen,  and  two  or  three  of  the  outside  public. 
This  conference  of  the  trade  is  to  study  conditions  and 
recommend  a  minimum  wage,  which  is  then  to  be  pub- 
lished as  an  official  recommendation.  No  one  is  legally 
bound  by  it.  But  even  supposing  he  were,  as  in  Oregon, 
California  and  elsewhere,  how  can  the  legal  fixing  of  the 
least  that  may  be  paid  affect  the  discussion  of  how  much 
more  shall  be  paid?  If  we  make  a  rule  that  no  one  shall 
receive  less  than  eight  dollars  a  week,  how  does  that 
prevent  an  employer  from  offering,  or  the  workers  from 
asking,  nine  or  ten  dollars?  It  is  like  assuming  that  be- 
cause the  tenement  house  law  prescribes  one  hundred 
cubic  feet  of  air  per  person,  no  one  must  live  in  more 
than  one  hundred  feet. 

But,  say  our  critics,  the  tendency  will  be  to  level 
down  to  the  minimum.  Yes,  but  whom  will  it  level 
down?  Half  the  unskilled  women  workers  will  be 
levelled  up.  What  ground  is  there  for  supposing  the 
others  will  be  levelled  down?  Are  they,  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Brown,  being  paid  more  than  they  are  "worth"? 
Or  are  they  being  paid  what  they  are  "  worth "  ?  Or 
are  n't  they  being  paid  what  the  employer  feels  called 
upon  to  pay  them?  How  will  their  status  be  changed  by 
increasing  the  pay  of  the  sweated  workers? 

Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  contemplate  the  folly  of  an 
employer  who  paid  all  his  help,  skilled,  unskilled,  experi- 
enced, and  novice,  anything  like  a  single  minimum  stand- 
ard. With  no  incentive  left  for  improvement,  no  re- 
ward for  skill,  the  efficiency  of  his  plant  would  be  a 
spectacle,  and  he  would  find  very  soon  that  he  had  been 
cutting  off  his  nose  to  spite  his  face. 

There  is,  however,  no  need  to  guess  about  these  dark 
predictions.  The  minimum  wage  in  one  form  or  another 
has  been  applied  for  many  years  in  various  parts  of  the 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  279 

world.  In  Victoria  it  has  been  enforced  by  law  since 
1896,  it  has  been  applied  in  New  Zealand,  in  England  and 
elsewhere.  In  the  United  States  the  trade  unions  have  in 
various  trades  applied  it.  For  clearly  there  is  no  eco- 
nomic difference  between  a  minimum  established  by  force 
of  law,  by  force  of  public  opinion,  or  by  force  of  a  strike. 
The  economic  effect  is  the  same,  and  all  the  terrible  re- 
sults prophesied  ought  to  have  shown  themselves.  It 
is,  I  believe,  an  almost  unanimous  conclusion  of  students 
that  the  minimum  rates  have  not  tended  to  become  the 
maximum. 

There  is  one  prediction  persistently  made  by  Mr.  Brown 
and  others  which  experience  shows  to  be  true.  A  cer- 
tain number  of  the  ultimately  inefficient  workers  are  dis- 
placed when  the  living  wage  standard  is  applied  to  an 
industry.  The  brush  factory  in  Massachusetts  which  re- 
organized, saved  $40,000  on  its  wage  bill,  and  discharged 
a  hundred  of  its  least  skilled  employees,  is  a  case  in  point. 
There  are  undoubtedly  people  working  to-day  whom  no 
business  man  would  keep  if  they  could  not  be  sweated. 
Child  labor  is  the  most  striking  example,  coolie  labor 
is  another;  some  immigrant  labor,  both  men's  and 
women's,  falls  within  the  category.  There  are  also 
groups  of  workers  who  are  physically  or  mentally  de- 
fective, and  there  are  those  who  have  not  yet  learned 
the  trade  and  so  require  an  apprenticeship  of  some  kind. 

We  are  asked,  What  is  to  become  of  these  people?  The 
question  generally  assumes  that  we  have  forgotten  all 
about  them,  or  that  in  our  ruthless  benevolence  we  plan 
to  throw  them  out  into  the  street.  Yet,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  is  just  these  marginal  workers  who  constitute  the 
most  convincing  argument  for  establishing  living  wage 
standards.  But  they  cannot  be  dealt  with  wholesale. 

In  low-skilled  occupations  such  as  the  sweated  trades 
no  long  period  of  apprenticeship  is  required.  But  there 


280  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

is  a  time  when  the  young  girl  is  so  inexperienced  that 
she  wastes  material  and  produces  very  little  result.  All 
sensible  minimum  wage  laws  provide  for  about  six 
months'  probation  at  something  under  the  standard  wage. 
There  has  been  a  tendency  among  employers  to  abuse 
this  privilege.  They  have  found  it  cheaper  to  take  on 
"  apprentices "  for  six  months,  discharge  them,  and  re- 
cruit a  new  force  of  "  inexperienced  workers."  They 
have  generally  worked  this  evasion  of  the  spirit  of  the 
plan  when  the  difference  between  the  regular  wage  and 
the  probationary  wage  was  greater  than  the  difference 
between  the  value  of  an  inexperienced  and  an  experienced 
employee. 

Obviously  these  difficulties  can  be  met  by  resourceful 
administration.  An  alert  Commission  can  adjust  its  find- 
ings so  as  to  eliminate  gross  circumvention,  and  still 
make  perfectly  feasible  a  term  of  apprenticeship.  The 
deeper  remedy  for  the  situation  lies  in  the  school  sys- 
tem which  turns  into  industry  workers  with  so  little  gen- 
eral training  and  vocational  adaptability. 

The  plan  we  propose  carries  with  it  a  provision  for 
licenses  to  be  granted  by  the  Commission  in  special  cases 
where  the  evidence  is  clear  that  a  person  should  be  per- 
mitted to  work  for  less  than  the  minimum  wage.  This 
elasticity  is  needed  for  good  administration,  because  in 
any  human  problem  there  are  particular  people  who  fit 
badly  into  a  general  rule.  There  are,  for  example,  a 
number  of  workers  who  are  crippled  in  one  way  or  an- 
other, and  yet  manage  to  live  self-respecting  lives  by 
earning  small  sums.  No  one  proposes  to  crush  them 
under  an  iron  rule,  and  so  a  human  discretion  is  allowed 
to  the  Commission. 

There  are  nevertheless  classes  of  workers  whose 
productivity  is  very,  very  low.  They  may  be  old,  or 
weak-minded,  or  physically  feeble,  or  so  utterly  un- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  281 

trained  and  illiterate  that  under  American  conditions 
they  cannot  be  employed  at  a  living  wage.  We  say  of 
them  that  they  should  not  be  employed.  They  should  not 
be  permitted  to  debauch  the  labor  market,  to  wreck 
by  their  competition  the  standards  of  other  workers. 

Not  enough  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  the  fixing 
of  an  American  minimum  is  one  of  our  best  protections 
against  indiscriminate  and  overstimulated  immigration. 
Once  abolish  sweating  and  take  industry  off  a  basis  of 
cheap  labor,  and  you  have  reduced  one  of  the  great  in- 
centives to  the  most  threatening  forms  of  immigration. 
If  the  European  is  compelled  to  work  at  not  less  than 
an  American  standard  he  will  be  less  useful  to  the  em- 
ployers of  cheap  labor,  and  less  effort  will  be  made  to 
bring  him  over. 

The  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  employment  of  chil- 
dren. They  are  hired  to-day  because  they  are  cheap. 
Make  them  expensive,  and  fewer  of  them  will  be  hired; 
there  will  thus  be  less  opposition  to  child  labor  laws.  In- 
deed, by  the  transition  from  a  sweated  to  a  living  stand- 
ard there  are  few  problems  of  industry  which  are  not 
affected.  Whenever  business  men  abandon  the  old  no- 
tion of  all  the  traffic  will  bear  and  all  the  human  body  can 
stand,  and  turn  to  an  intelligent  counting  of  vital  costs, 
a  better  morale  appears  in  the  industrial  world. 

We  are  dealing  in  these  sweated  trades  with  industries 
where  cooperation,  pride  of  work,  technical  and  social 
standards  are  most  primitive.  Competition  has  corrupted 
them  to  the  point  of  despair,  and  only  by  the  establish- 
ment of  some  device  like  the  wages  board  can  we  hope 
to  create  a  civilized  discipline.  The  employers  must  orT 
ganize  to  send  their  representatives;  the  workers  must 
combine  to  send  theirs.  At  these  board  meetings  the 
conditions  of  the  trade  as  a  whole  have  to  be  analyzed, 
statistics  have  to  be  compiled,  investigations  made. 


282  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

Well-managed  plants  are  compared  with  .befuddled  ones; 
the  whole  philosophy  of  management  is  opened  to  discus- 
sion. The  educational  effect  of  this  will  undoubtedly 
prove  to  be  very  great. 

For  what  the  minimum  wage  plan  proposes  is  really 
a  kind  erf  legislature  of  the  industry  —  a  legislature  in 
which  workers,  employers  and  public  are  represented. 
This  is  the  Wages  Board.  Its  findings  are  subject  to 
veto  or  review  by  the  Commission,  or  by  the  courts. 
But  when  the  disagreement  is  not  too  radical,  the  Wages 
Board  becomes  in  practice  the  actual  parliament  of  the 
industry.  Under  the  Oregon  plan  its  decrees  are  en- 
forced by  the  state,  under  the  Massachusetts  plan  by 
public  opinion. 

Its  powers,  like  that  of  any  legislature,  are  limited. 
It  establishes  only  the  minimum  wage.  But  this  must 
carry  with  it  agreement  about  hours,  piece  work,  labor 
conditions,  manufacturing  methods,  use  of  machinery, 
and,  in  the  end,  profits  and  prices  too.  In  short,  the 
Wages  Board  is  a  device  for  stimulating  in  sweated  and 
primitive  trades  those  beginnings  of  economic  democracy 
which  the  unions  are  beginning  to  construct  in  the  more 
mature  industries.  Ultimately  this  is  perhaps  the  great- 
est promise  of  the  experiment.  The  management  of 
these  chaotic  trades  will  be  scrutinized  by  the  persons 
most  closely  concerned  —  the  people  who  live  and  work 
in  them.  Employers  will  begin  to  know  what  they  are 
at,  how  their  methods  compare  with  those  of  their  rivals. 
They  will  learn  the  difficult  and  necessary  art  of  think- 
ing about  the  trade  as  a  whole  in  its  relation  to  labor  and 
the  public.  The  workers  will  for  the  first  time  get  gen- 
uine representation,  and  they  should  learn  by  direct 
example  the  value  of  the  solidarity  of  labor.  They  will 
receive  constant  practice  in  formulating  their  needs,  ex- 
erting pressure,  making  intelligent  their  demands.  And 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  283 

this,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  in  industries  where 
women  predominate,  women  who  will  soon  be  voters.  No 
more  necessary  or  more  valuable  school  of  democracy 
can  be  created  than  these  trade  legislatures,  in  which 
people  have  a  chance  to  learn  how  to  govern  the  condi- 
tions of  their  work. 

Yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  assume  that  minimum  wage 
legislation  is  a  kind  of  omnibus  for  paradise.  To  fix  a 
"  living  standard  "  would  be  a  great  advance  over  what 
we  have,  but  by  every  civilized  criterion  it  is  a  grudging 
and  miserable  thing.  In  those  moments  of  lucidity  when 
we  forget  our  hesitancy  before  brute  obstruction  it  seems 
like  a  kind  of  madness  that  we  should  have  to  argue 
and  scrape  in  order  that  we  may  secure  to  millions  of 
women  enough  income  to  "  live."  If  we  had  not  wit- 
nessed whole  nations  glowering  at  each  other  all  winter 
from  holes  in  the  mud  it  would  be  hard  to  believe  that 
America  with  all  its  riches  could  still  be  primitive  enough 
to  grunt  and  protest  at  a  living  wage  —  a  living  wage, 
mind  you;  not  a  wage  so  its  women  can  live  well,  not 
enough  to  make  life  a  rich  and  welcome  experience,  but 
just  enough  to  secure  existence  amid  drudgery  in  gray 
boarding-houses  and  cheap  restaurants. 

We  may  fail  to  secure  that.  So  far  as  the  press  is  con- 
cerned, the  issue  hardly  exists.  It  lies  at  the  moment 
stifled  in  platitudes  and  half-truths  about  "  not  hurting 
business."  From  the  little  comment  there  is,  we  might 
think  that  a  business  was  sound  if  it  rested  on  the  degra- 
dation of  its  labor ;  might  think  that  business  men  were  a 
lot  of  jumpy  neurotics  ready  to  shrivel  up  and  burst 
into  tears  at  a  proposal  to  increase  their  wages  bill  a 
penny  or  two  on  the  dollar;  might  think,  from  the  ex- 
clamations of  Mr.  Brown  and  his  friend  John  Smith, 
that  a  campaign  against  sweating  would  do  no  less  than 
ruin  the  country. 


284  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

But  you  cannot  ruin  a  country  by  conserving  its  life. 
You  can  ruin  a  country  only  by  stupidity,  waste  and 
greed. 


APPENDIX  E 
DEBATING  LEAGUES 

Rather  than  reprint  here  a  complete  copy  of  a  consti- 
tution of  a  debating  league,  a  list  of  points  which  should 
be  covered  will  be  presented.  Copies  of  complete  formal 
constitutions  of  leagues  are  so  plentiful,  and  can  be 
found  in  so  many  different  books  and  pamphlets  that  it 
is  not  worth  while  to  take  the  space  here  to  produce 
one.  But  the  following  suggestions  are  made  in  the  be- 
lief that  the  simplest  possible  agreement  incorporating 
an  understanding  on  the  following  points  will  be  the 
most  satisfactory  type  of  agreement  for  high  school  de- 
bating. 

i.  A  triangular  league.  A  triangular  agreement  is 
much  more  satisfactory  for  a  number  of  reasons  than 
a  league  of  any  other  size.  In  this,  three  schools  agree 
to  debate  the  same  question  on  the  same  night.  Each 
school  has  an  affirmative  and  negative  team,  and  keeps 
the  affirmative  team  at  home  and  sends  the  negative 
team  away.  For  example,  the  first  year,  if  Andover, 
Brownsville,  and  Cheshire  are  in  a  league,  each  one 
will  have  an  affirmative  team  at  home.  The  Andover 
negative  team  will  meet  the  Brownsville  affirmative  at 
Brownsville,  the  Brownsville  negative  will  meet  the 
Cheshire  affirmative  at  Cheshire,  and  the  Cheshire  nega- 
tive will  meet  the  Andover  affirmative  at  Andover.  Then 
the  second  year  the  Andover  affirmative  will  meet  the 
Brownsville  negative  at  Andover,  the  Brownsville  affirma- 
tive will  meet  the  Cheshire  negative  at  Brownsville,  and 
the  Cheshire  affirmative  will  meet  the  Andover  negative 


286  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

.at  Cheshire.  The  important  thing  to  remember  is  to 
decide  at  the  beginning  how  the  league  will  start,  and 
after  that  the  rotation  is  perfectly  regular.  If  there 
is  a  large  state  league,  made  up  of  a  series  of  triangular 
leagues,  the  winners  of  one  triangle  are  paired  against 
the  winners  of  another  triangle,  and  the  winner  of  this 
pair  against  the  winner  of  a  similar  pair,  and  so  on. 
Where  the  contests  are  judged  by  three  judges,  rate  and 
per  cent,  should  be  taken,  and  if  the  winner  is  not 
determined  by  getting  two  victories,  then  the  winner 
should  be  determined  by  getting  the  votes  of  the  largest 
number  of  judges.  And  if  this  does  not  determine,  then 
the  winner  should  be  determined  by  the  highest  average 
percentage  of  its  six  speakers,  as  rated  .by  the  judges 
in  all  the  contests;  and  if  this  does  not  determine,  then 
the  teams  so  tied  should  draw  lots. 

2.  The  order  and  length  of  speeches  should  be  agreed 
on.    The    best    order    for   a    three-man    team    is:    main 
speeches;  first  affirmative,  first  negative,  second  affirma- 
tive,  second  negative,   third   affirmative,   third  negative. 
And  for  rebuttal  speeches;  first  negative,  first  affirmative, 
second  negative,  second  affirmative,  third  negative,  third 
affirmative.    Three-man  teams  are  to  be  preferred  to  two- 
man  teams,  but  the  same  order  of  speaking  may  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  two-man  team.    The  length  of  speeches  for 
teams  composed  of  three  each,  should  be  ten  or  twelve 
minutes  for  the  main  speeches,  and  five  or  six  minutes 
for    rebuttal.     For    teams    composed   of    two    each,    the 
speeches  should  be  fifteen  or  eighteen  minutes  for  the 
main  speech,  and  six  to  ten  for  the  rebuttal. 

3.  Schools  should  agree  upon   the  eligibility  of  con- 
testants covering  scholastic  standing,  age,  and  debating 
experience. 

4.  Schools  should  agree  upon  the  method  of  choosing 
the  question.    The  best  possible  method  is  to  have  faculty 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  287 

representatives  of  the  schools,  preferably  the  teacher  of 
speech,  or  other  teacher  who  has  supervision  of  debating, 
meet  in  conference  on  an  agreed  date  each  year  and 
agree  upon  the  question.  If  for  any  reason  this  does  not 
work  out,  the  second  best  method  is  to  have  each  school 
on  an  agreed  date  propose  a  proposition  to  each  of  the 
other  schools  in  the  league;  then  on  a  second  agreed 
date,  about  a  week  or  ten  days  later,  have  each  school 
send  to  each  other  school  the  complete  list  of  questions 
rated  and  graded  in  percentages  between  fifty  and  a 
hundred,  precisely  as  contestants  are  graded  in  con- 
tests. If  this  results  in  a  tie,  then  the  question  should 
be  submitted  to  some  impartial  and  competent  authority 
on  debating  to  choose  a  question  out  of  the  list,  or  to 
break  the  tie.  A  third  possible  method  is  to  agree  upon 
some  competent  authority  in  debate,  acquaint  such  per- 
son with  the  situation  in  the  league,  ask  such  a  person  to 
frame  a  proposition  for  the  year's  debates,  and  agree  in 
advance  to  take  the  proposition  so  framed  without  ques- 
tion or  discussion  of  possible  changes. 

5.  Judges.    The  schools  should  agree  upon  the  matter 
of  choosing  judges  and  the  instructions  and  ballots  to  be 
used.    Again   the  best  possible   method   is   to   have  the 
respective  faculty  members  of  the  school  meet  in  con- 
ference and  agree  upon  a  board  of  judges.     If  such  a 
meeting   is    impracticable,   the   next   best   method   is   to 
come  to  an  agreement  by  correspondence.     The  first  thing 
to  do  is  to  agree  upon  the  type  of  judge  who  shall  be 
called   in.     The   suggestions   presented  in   this   text   are 
here   recommended   for   consideration   in   deciding   upon 
the  type  of  judge  and  the  type  of  decision  wanted.     Else- 
where in  this  appendix  copies  of  suggested  ballots  and 
instructions  to  judges  are  printed. 

6.  Miscellaneous  suggestions  in  regard  to  delivery,  notes, 
charts,  formal  or  informal  dress,  etc.,  may  be  agreed  upon 


288  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 

if  desired.  Any  of  the  suggestions  made  in  this  text  may 
be  incorporated  into  an  agreement,  or  there  may  be  sim- 
ply an  understanding  between  the  schools  that  they  will 
try  to  carry  on  debating  according  to  the  suggestions  of 
the  various  chapters  of  this  volume. 


APPENDIX  F 

INSTRUCTIONS  AND  BALLOT  FOR  A  JUDGE 
OF  A  DEBATE 

To  the  Judge : 

You  are  called  here  as  one  who  knows  what  consti- 
tutes excellence  in  debating,  and  you  are  asked  to  render 
a  decision  based  upon  the  comparative  excellence  shown 
by  the  teams  in  this  contest. 

The  contestants  have  been  told  that  "  excellence  in 
debating"  covers:  (a)  proper  analysis  or  interpretation 
of  the  proposition  and  a  sound  plan  of  case  based  upon 
such  analysis,  (b)  adequate  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
acquaintance  with  the  evidence  available,  (c)  straight 
thinking  based  upon  the  evidence  presented,  (d)  good 
Use  of  English,  (e)  effective  public  speaking,  (f)  proper 
conduct  or  deportment  toward  opponents,  audiences, 
judges,  presiding  officer. 

The  contestants  have  further  been  told  that  definite 
per  cents  have  not  been  assigned  to  the  divisions  men- 
tioned, but  that  each  judge  will  take  all  of  them  into  con- 
sideration in  arriving  at  his  decision  and  will  give  to 
each  whatever  weight  he  thinks  it  entitled  to. 

Please  give  below,  as  specifically  as  possible,  the  reasons 
for  your  decision.  J 

BALLOT 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  instructions,  I  vote  to  award 

the  debate  to  the team,  for  the 

following  reasons: 

(Signed)    ,  Judge. 


APPENDIX  G 

CRITICISM  BLANK  AND  BALLOT  FOR  JUDGE 
OF  A  DEBATE 

INTERSCHOLASTIC  DEBATE 
MARCH  26,  1920 

Andover  High  School,  Affirmative 

vs.  • 
Brownsville  High  School,  Negative 

Resolved :  that. .  


290 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE 


291 


s 

«1     1 

at 

C 

H 

•«  60       ° 

«» 

°!      I 

"o 

to 

IS  1 

5 

c^ 

£               '(0 

rtco     | 

M 

P      | 

W     «H             (O 

S 

f  J  ,*• 

rt 

S  J  §  jf  " 

5* 

H 

o'>'^  ra 

•K 

^^S  t;3 

"Q 

^  c  g 

S 

e*j 

. 

«o|| 

* 

r, 

•n^'o"1 

<u  >-.  a  u 

- 

o'o'S  o1 

i 

c 

o 

o 

Jj 

S-a  """rt 

•o 

'•C 

C 

ft 

2 

5  S*'  ^ 

05 

'§ 

3 

w4 

S  c  5£ 

3 

1 

CU 

S 

y 

|a'S5 

bO 

ft 

g 

X 

3 

c'c-^  S  • 

•is 

W 

O 

3 

**"*  *Pi  O'O 

•g 

2 

ft 

s®«-fif 

H 

9 

0 

cu 

CO 

>>£i 

.C 

|S-5^ 

.S 
1 

tation 

c' 
.2 

<u 

bo 

g 

(O     CU 

'1 

co 

CO 

£ 

CU 

If 

."S 

'to 

o 

ft 

b 
|| 

1 

inferenc 

xtempor 

deportm 

3 

3 

| 

f  speec 
enunci; 

! 

0) 

|||f; 
«2^-5 

ii 

£° 

O  VM 
O 

CO 

*5    rt 

C^J    .^ 

< 

Knowledge, 
evidence 

Reasoning, 

W 

.S 

Conduct  or 

cu 

u 

.S 

2 

o 
S 

Clearness  o 
nunciation, 

b 

O 

N 
1 

i|i 

APPENDIX  H 
DISCUSSION  CONTESTS 

In  discussion  contests,  as  in  debating  contests,  the 
simpler  the  form  of  the  agreement  the  better.  The  fol- 
lowing suggestions  are  offered  in  the  belief  that  carrying 
them  out  will  furnish  the  schools  one  of  the  most  valuable 
possible  types  of  speaking  contest. 

1.  Such  contests   may  be  held  within  the   school  be- 
tween clubs  or  classes,  or  may  be  held  between  schools. 
The  contestants  may  be  either  individuals  or  teams.     If 
individuals,  of  course  each  one  is  rated  by  himself,  and 
if  teams,  then  each  member  of  the  team  is  rated  on  his 
own  ability,  and  the  team  rating  is  simply  the  average 
of  the  individuals  composing  the  team. 

2.  Systems  or  plans  vary  slightly.    In  all  of  them  the 
object  is  extemporaneous  discussion.     The  following  four 
plans  are  suggested: 

Plan  A.  Probably  the  most  satisfactory  of  the  sug- 
gested plans  is  as  follows:  A  general  subject  for  study 
is  agreed  upon  and  given  out,  say,  three  months  or  other 
definite  period,  before  the  night  of  the  contest.  On  the 
day  of  the  contest  the  faculty  representatives  of  the 
schools  meet  and  agree  upon  a  list  of  topics.  If  there 
are  six  contestants  in  the  contest,  the  list  of  topics 
should  be  probably  twelve  or  fifteen.  The  representa- 
tives of  the  schools  may  either  agree  together  on  each 
topic,  or,  if  there  are  three  representatives  present,  each 
may  have  the  privilege  of  writing  out  one-third  of  the 
topics.  If  two  happen  to  write  the  same  topic,  they  may 

292 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  293 

draw  lots  to  see  who  shall  have  the  privilege  of  putting 
in  another  one.  From  this  list  of  topics  the  contestants 
shall  each  draw  a  subject  by  lot  at  the  time  agreed  upon 
(probably  an  hour  or  two  before  the  contest  opens). 
After  having  drawn  the  subject,  the  contestants  shall  be 
placed  together  in  some  room,  as  a  classroom,  without 
books  or  material,  and  be  allowed  quiet  in  which  to 
plan  their  discussions.  Each  contestant  should  be  allowed 
to  have  in  his  possession  a  maximum  of  three  or  four 
4"x6"  cards,  on  which  to  make  an  outline.  Places  on 
the  program  are  also  to  be  determined  by  lot.  Under 
this  scheme  a  general  subject  is  chosen,  as  for  example, 
"  Interscholastic  athletics  "  or  the  "  Monroe  Doctrine,"  or 
the  "Negro  Question." 

Plan  B.  Under  this  plan  a  general  subject  is  chosen  in 
advance,  with  a  list  of  specific  topics  related  to  it,  pub- 
lished at  the  same  time.  Students  are  allowed  to  prepare 
on  each  of  these  topics,  each  being  required  to  give  his 
word  of  honor  that  he  will  not  write  anything  whatever, 
not  even  notes  or  outlines,  and  will  not  memorize  anything 
read.  Then  on  the  night  of  the  contest,  the  contestants 
draw  from  this  list  of  published  subjects  by  lot.  The  type 
of  program  possible  under  this  plan  may  be  indicated  by 
the  following:  General  subject  to  be  announced,  "Food 
and  War."  Sub-topics  to  be  drawn  by  lot  on  the  night  of 
the  contest  might  be: 

1.  Food  situation  in  France,  or  England,  or  Italy. 

2.  Food  situation  in  neutral  countries:  Holland,  Nor- 
way. 

3.  Wheat   and  war   in   America.     (Beef,   pork.) 

4.  Feeding  the  American  army. 

5.  The  food  shipment  to  allies. 

Plan  C  calls  for  a  list  of  separate  topics,  such,  for  in- 


294  A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE' 

stance,  as  the  following  quoted  from  an  article  by  Mr. 
E.  H.  Wilds,  Quarterly  Journal  of  Speech  Education, 
April,  1917,  p.  181 : 

1.  Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Labor  Disputes. 

2.  The  City  Manager  Plan. 

3.  The  Public  Defender. 

4.  Should  the  United  States  Fight? 

5.  National  Prohibition. 

6.  The  Railroad  Eight-hour  Law. 

7.  A  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

8.  The  Federal  Child  Labor  Law. 

9.  Improving  the  Rural  Schools. 

10.  Women  and  the  War. 

11.  The   Country   Church. 

12.  Submarine  Warfare. 

13.  Atrocities  of  the  War. 

14.  Country  Life  in  America. 

15.  The  European  War  and  Christianity. 

1 6.  Japan  and  the  United  States'. 

17.  The  New  Russia. 

18.  Hours  of  Labor. 

19.  The  Literacy  Test  for  Immigrants. 

20.  The  Situation  with  Mexico. 

It  might  be  well  to  have  simpler  and  more  concrete 
subjects  than  those  given  in  this  list,  but  this  illustrates 
the  type. 

Plan  D.  Extemporaneous  debate.  This  plan  is  much 
like  Plan  A,  except  that  on  the  night  of  the  contest,  in- 
stead of  drawing  definite  topics  under  the  general  sub- 
ject, a  formal  proposition  dealing  with  this  subject  is 
announced,  and  the  contestants  draw  lots  for  side  and 
position,  and  after  a  brief  preparation,  proceed  to  hold 
a  regular  debate.  Such  subjects  as  those  mentioned  un- 


AND  ORAL  DISCUSSION  295 

der  "  A  "  might  be  used,  or  any  important  problem  of 
the  day. 

3.  Preparation.     In  regard  to  the  preparation  for  these 
contests,   much   has   been   already   suggested   above.     In 
addition  it  may  be  said  that  bibliographies  may  or  may  not 
be  furnished.    There  should  be  a  definite  agreement  not 
to   write   or   memorize   anything   in   preparation.     Other 
details  of  the  contest  to  suit  varying  situations  in  dif- 
ferent  institutions  may  easily  be   incorporated. 

4.  Judges.    Judges  for  such  contests  have  already  been 
discussed    in    the    text    and    suggested    instructions    and 
ballots   are   included  elsewhere   in   the   Appendix.     It   is 
enough    here   to    suggest    that    a    definite    agreement    be 
reached  in  regard  to  the  type  of  the  judge  wanted  and 
the    instructions   to   be   given   to   him.     Only   competent 
critics  should  be  chosen  for  judges,  and  one  expert  critic 
of  debate  or  public  discussion  will  probably  prove  much 
more  satisfactory  than  three  or  five  judges  whose  opin- 
ions are  of  less  significance. 

5.  Formal  regulations  between  schools  may  be  drawn 
up  on  the  same  basis  as  that  suggested  elsewhere  in  the 
Appendix  for  a  debating  league,  and  the  choice  of  sub- 
jects and  the  choice  of  judges  should  be  arranged  for  in 
the  same  manner  as  suggested  in  the  discussion  of  debat- 
ing leagues  printed  elsewhere. 


APPENDIX  I 

INSTRUCTIONS  AND  BALLOT  FOR  JUDGE 
OF  A  DISCUSSION  CONTEST 

To  the  Judge: 

You  are  called  here  as  one  who  knows  what  consti- 
tutes excellence  in  oral  public  discussion,  and  you  are 
asked  to  grade  the  contestants  on  the  basis  of  the  com- 
parative excellence  shown.  Please  give  each  contestant 
both  a  rank  and  a  percentage.  Do  not  give  any  two 
contestants  the  same  rank  or  the  same  percentage.  No 
percentage  should  be  less  than  50,  not  more  than  100. 

The  contestants  are  familiar  with  these  instructions, 
and  have  been  told  in  addition  that  excellence  in  oral 
public  discussion  covers: 

1.  Adequate  knowledge  of  the  subject   discussed. 

2.  Sound  thinking. 

3.  Good  oral  composition  (organization,  diction,  gram- 
mar, etc.) 

4.  Effective   speaking. 

The  contestants  have  been  told  that  definite  per  cents 
will  not  be  assigned  to  these  divisions,  but  that  all  of 
these  will  be  considered  in  arriving  at  the  decision. 


296 


A  MANUAL  OF  DEBATE  297 


Ballot 


Name  of  Contestant  or 
Subject    (or   both) 

Rank 

Percentage 

(£ 

Signed)   . 

Judge. 


INDEX 


Actual  issues,  34 
Adjustment  or  repairs,  nega- 
tive case,  43 
Admitted  issues,  34 
Advantages  of  extemporane- 
ous speaking,   162 
Affirmative,  burden  of  proof 
on,  22 

case,  40 

the  first,  150 
Analogy,  100 

figurative,  101 

literal,  101 
Analysis  of  stock  issues,  37 

problem  of,  28 

stock  issues  in,  36 
Antecedent  probability,  87 
Argument  and  evidence,  56 
Argumentation  defined,  3 
Argument  by  example,  87 

by  generalization,  96 

effect  to  cause,  91 

effect  to  effect,  93 

forms  of,  86 

from  analogy,  100 

from  antecedent  probability, 

87 

from  association,  94 
from  authority,  67,  79 
from  cause  to  effect,  87 
from  sign,  87,  91 
new  in  rebuttal,  113 
Arrangement,  defined,  117 
Assertion,  proposition  an,  20 
Association,  94 


Authority,  argument  from,  67, 

79 

Authorities,  misuse  of,  68 
Authority,  recognised,  81 
qualified,  81 

B 

Balanced  summary,  154 

"  Block  "  system  of  speaking, 
171 

Brevity,  146 

Brief  and  outline,  124 
defined,  124 
drawing,  rules  for,  127 
outline  and  speech,  143 
propositions,  25 

Burden  of  proof  and  burden 

of  rebuttal,  28 
of  proof  in  proposition,  22 
of  proof  on  affirmative,  32 
of    proof    shifted,   29 
of  rebuttal  and  burden  of 

proof,  28 
of  rebuttal  shifted,  29 


Card    form,   54 
Case,  affirmative,  40 

negative,    41 
Cause  to  effect,  87 
Characteristics  of  good  propo- 
sitions,  19 
Charts,  173 
Choosing  judges,  12 
Circumstantial  evidence,  63 
Classifications  of  reasoning,  86 


299 


300 


INDEX 


Class  work,  4 

Coherence,  119 

Composition,  extemporaneous, 

144 

Conclusion,   the,    153 
Concrete  propositions,  22 
Contestants,  purpose   of,  6 
Contests,  decisions  in,  7 

function  of,  5 

work,  4,  5 
Counter  proposition,  negative 

case,  44 
Critic's  vote,  n 

D 

Dangers    of    extemporaneous 

speaking,   165 
Debatable  proposition,  25 
Debate  defined,  3 
Decisions  in  contests,  7 

types  of,  8 

Defense  of  the  present,  nega- 
tive case,  42 
Delivery,  extemporaneous,  162 

importance  of,  157 

impromptu,  160 

memorized,  161 

methods  of,  160 

reading,  160 
Diagrams,  173 
Direct   evidence,  63 
Discussion,  the,  152 
Documentation,  55 


Effect  to  cause,  91 
Effect  to  effect,  93 
Emphasis,  121 

place,  122 

space,  123 
Evidence  and  argument,  56 

and  reasoning,  84 


circumstantial,   63 
consistent  with  experience, 

7i 

consistent  with  itself,  72 
consistent  with  known  facts, 

70 

defined,  60 
direct,  63 
expert,  66 
hearsay,  65 
hearsay  test  of,  72 
kinds  of,  62 
negative  66 
new,  in  rebuttal,  113 
opinion,  79 
opinion   needed,  80 
original,    65 
personal,  64 
real,  64 
tests  of,  70 

tests  of  sources  of,  75 
thinking  through,  58 
Example,  argument  from,  87, 

96 

Expenses  of  judges,  14 
Experience,  evidence  consist- 
ent with,  71 
Expert  evidence,  66 
judge,  13 
witnesses,  66-79 

needed,  80 
Extemporaneous  composition, 

144,  145 

contest  defined,  4 
speaking,  162 

advantages  of,  162 
dangers,  165 


Fact  and  opinion  in  evidence, 

60 
Fighting  issues,  34 


INDEX 


301 


Figurative  analogy,  101 
Flexibility,  162 
Forms    of     argument, 

86 
First  affirmative,  150 

negative,  151 
Function  of  contests,  5 

of  judges,  47,  48 


Generalization,  96 

from   single   instance,    100, 

102 

Good  propositions  for  debate, 
characteristics  of,  19 

H 

Hearsay  evidence,  65 
test,  65 
of   ..vidence,  72 


I 


Importance   of   delivery,    157 
Impromptu   speaking,    160 
Indexes,  50 

Inspiration   of   audience,    164 
Interesting  propositions,  26 
Interviews,  51 
Introduction,  the,   150 
Investigation   defined,  49 

necessary,  49 

propositions  for,  18 
Issues,  actual,  34 

admitted,  34 

and  partition,  35 

defined,  30 

fighting,  34 

in  general  argument,  32 

in  law,  31 

kinds  of,  33 


potential,  34 
stock,  36 


Judge,  expert,  13 

single,   13 
Judges,  choosing,  12 

decisions,  8ff 
bases  of,  47,  48 

expenses,  14 

function  of,  47,  48 
Judging  debate,  47 
Juryman's  vote,  9 


Kinds  of  evidence,  62 

of  issues,  33 

of  propositions,  17 
Known   facts,    evidence  con- 
sistent with,  70 


Law,  issues  in,  31 

Learning  to  speak  in  public, 

158 

Legislators'  vote,  8 
Letters,  private,  51 
Literal  analogy,   101 
Losing  and  winning,  47 

M 

Memorized  delivery,  161 
Methods  of  delivery,   160 

of  refutation,  113 
Misuse  of  authorities,  68 
Mixed   method    of    speaking, 

171 

Monotony*  165 
Mood  of  audience,  162 


302 


INDEX 


N 


Natural  speaking,  159 
Negative  case,  41 

case,  adjustment  or  repairs, 
43 

case,  counter  proposition,  44 

case,  defense  of  the  pres- 
ent, 42 

case,  pure  refutation,  42 

cases,  illustrated,  46 

evidence,  66 

the  first,   151 

Newcomer,  Elements  of  Rhe- 
toric, 148 
Note  card,  54 
Notebook,  53 
Notes,  53 


Observation,  52 
Opinion  and  fact  in  evidence, 
60 

evidence,  79 

evidence  needed,  80 
Opportunity  of  witness,  78 
Oral  discussion  defined,  4 
Ordinary  witnesses,  66,  76 
Original  evidence,  65 
Outline  and  brief,  124 

brief    and    speech,    144 

explained,  125 
Outlining  in  partition,  36 


Parallel  column  analysis,  61 
Partition,  35 

and  issues,  35 
Personal  evidence,  64 

observation,  52 

taste,  25 


Phrasing  refutation,  108 

the  proposition,  19 
Place  emphasis,  122 
Plan  of  study,  52 
Platform  helps,  171 
Potential  issues,  34 
Preparation  of  refutation,  114 
Prima'facie  case,  29,  106 
Principles,    three    rhetorical, 

117 

Printed  material,  50 
Private  letters,  51 
Probability,  antecedent,  87 
Problem  of  analysis,  28 
Proposition,  brief,  25 

and  assertion,  20 

concrete,  22 

debatable,  25 

defined,  15 

interesting,  26 

phrasing  the,  19 

simple,  22 

single,  20 

specific,   22 

unambiguous,  20 

unprepared,  21 

Propositions,  burden  of  proof 
in,  22 

characteristics  of  good,  19 

for  investigation,   18 

kinds  of,  17 

necessary,  15 

Public  speaking,  learning,  158 
Pure      refutation,      negative, 

case,  42 
Purpose  of  contestants,  6 


Q 


Quality  of  evidence,  tests  of, 

70 
Qualities   of  extemporaneous 

speaking,  145 


INDEX 


303 


Quarterly  Journal  of  Speech 
Education,  9,  14 


Reading,   160 

Real  evidence,  64 

Reality,  174 

Reasoning  and  evidence,  84 

classification  of,  86 

not  evidence,  60 
Rebuttal,  defined,  105 

new  argument  in,  113 

new  evidence  in,  113 

speeches,  112,  155 
Refutation,    Affirmative    and 
negative,  105 

defined,  105 
Refutation,  methods  of,  113 

phrasing,  108 

preparation  of,  114 

time  and  place,  in 
Refute,  what  to,  106 
Repetition,  165 
Rhetorical    principles,    three, 

117 
Rules  for  brief  drawing,  127 


Shifted  burden  of  proof,  29 
burden  of  rebuttal,  29 

Sign,  87 
argument  from,  91 

Simplicity,  147 

Single  judge,  the,  13 
proposition,  20 

Simple  proposition,  25 

Sources,  50 

Space  emphasis,  123 

Specific  proposition,  22 

Speeches,  rebuttal,  112,  155 

Speech,  outline,  and  brief,  143 


Stock  issues  36 

analysis  of,  37 

in  analysis,  36 
Summary,  balanced,  154 


Term,  16 

Test  of  hearsay  evidence,  65 
Tests  of  evidence,  70 
Tests  of  quality  of  evidence, 
70 

of  sources  of  evidence,  75 
Types  of  decision,  8 

of  negative  cases,  42 
illustrated,  46 

of  vote,  8 


U 


Unambiguous  proposition,  20 

Unity,  118 

Unprejudiced  proposition,  21 


Variety,   149 
Vividness,  147 
Vote,  critic's,  II 

juryman's,  9 

legislator's,  8 

types  of,  8 

W 

Winning  and  losing,  47 
Witness,  expert,  66-79 
needed,  80 

mentally  qualified,  77 
morally  qualified,  77 
opportunity  of,  78 
ordinary,  66,  76 
physically  qualified,  76 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


LD  21-95m-ll,'50(2877sl6)47G 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


